People v. Tate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tate

9 A.D.3d 829, 779 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9467

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

DecidedJuly 9, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.3d 829 (People v. Tate) 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. Tate, 9 A.D.3d 829, 779 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Joseph P. McCarthy, J.), rendered June 4, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree (Penal Law § 165.06). The evidence presented at trial established that the vehicle at issue was driven without the owner’s consent (see Matter of Michael P., 165 AD2d 651 [1990], appeal dismissed 77 NY2d 834 [1991], lv denied 77 NY2d 808 [1991]), and it cannot be said that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).. Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr, PJ, Gorski, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Joseph P. McCarthy, J.), rendered June 4, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree (Penal Law § 165.06). The evidence presented at trial established that the vehicle at issue was driven without the owner’s consent (see Matter of Michael P., 165 AD2d 651 [1990], appeal dismissed 77 NY2d 834 [1991], lv denied 77 NY2d 808 [1991]), and it cannot be said that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).. Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr, PJ, Gorski, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.3d 829, 779 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tate-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack