People v. Szack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Szack

106 A.D.2d 592, 483 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21583

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 24, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.2d 592 (People v. Szack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Szack, 106 A.D.2d 592, 483 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21583 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Hickman, J.), rendered November 14,1980, convicting him of criminal possession [593]*593of stolen property in the first degree (three counts), falsifying business records in the first degree, and illegal possession of a vehicle identification number plate (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, there was sufficient independent evidence, without considering the testimony of Denise Longendyke, defendant’s alleged accomplice, to corroborate the testimony of John Bennett, defendant’s conceded accomplice, to satisfy the requirement of CPL 60.22 (subd 1) (see, e.g., People v Glasper, 52 NY2d 970). O’Connor, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Hickman, J.), rendered November 14,1980, convicting him of criminal possession [593]*593of stolen property in the first degree (three counts), falsifying business records in the first degree, and illegal possession of a vehicle identification number plate (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, there was sufficient independent evidence, without considering the testimony of Denise Longendyke, defendant’s alleged accomplice, to corroborate the testimony of John Bennett, defendant’s conceded accomplice, to satisfy the requirement of CPL 60.22 (subd 1) (see, e.g., People v Glasper, 52 NY2d 970). O’Connor, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 592, 483 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-szack-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack