People v. Ui Lin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ui Lin

259 A.D.2d 298, 687 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2389

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 298 (People v. Ui Lin) 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. Ui Lin, 259 A.D.2d 298, 687 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered June 26, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove that the victim was an owner of the money is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interests of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the totality of the evidence supported a reasonable inference that the victim was an “owner” within the meaning of Penal Law § 155.00 (5) (People v Hutchinson, 56 NY2d 868). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered June 26, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove that the victim was an owner of the money is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interests of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the totality of the evidence supported a reasonable inference that the victim was an “owner” within the meaning of Penal Law § 155.00 (5) (People v Hutchinson, 56 NY2d 868). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 298, 687 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ui-lin-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack