People v. Vientos

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Vientos

587 N.E.2d 271, 79 N.Y.2d 771, 579 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 5095

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 587 N.E.2d 271 (People v. Vientos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Vientos, 587 N.E.2d 271, 79 N.Y.2d 771, 579 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 5095 (N.Y. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

It cannot be said as a matter of law that the People’s evidence of value was insufficient. The People’s expert testified that he was familiar with the retail market for Commodore computers, that the company did not sell the computers used, or authorize its dealers to do so, and that he knew of no market for used Commodore computers. The People were not required to show whether the equipment had an established value in the black market, since that standard is only applicable when the stolen items are contraband, such as drugs, which may not be sold legally (People v Irrizari, 5 NY2d 142, 145-146). The expert’s concession that an individual owner was free to sell used equipment to another person does not indicate the existence of a market for the used equipment, which contemplates that the sales occur with some regularity and uniformity (People v Irrizari, supra, at 146).

The statute provides that replacement cost may be used if [773]*773market value "cannot be satisfactorily ascertained” (Penal Law § 155.20 [1]), and the testimony of the People’s expert, if credited, permitted the People to use this alternative method of valuation. It was, therefore, proper for the court to charge the jury to this effect.

The defendant’s alternative argument that the People’s proof of replacement cost was insufficient because it did not take into account depreciation in the hands of the owner (People v Harold, 22 NY2d 443), was not raised at trial and thus was not preserved for review.

The other argument raised by the defendant is without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

It cannot be said as a matter of law that the People’s evidence of value was insufficient. The People’s expert testified that he was familiar with the retail market for Commodore computers, that the company did not sell the computers used, or authorize its dealers to do so, and that he knew of no market for used Commodore computers. The People were not required to show whether the equipment had an established value in the black market, since that standard is only applicable when the stolen items are contraband, such as drugs, which may not be sold legally (People v Irrizari, 5 NY2d 142, 145-146). The expert’s concession that an individual owner was free to sell used equipment to another person does not indicate the existence of a market for the used equipment, which contemplates that the sales occur with some regularity and uniformity (People v Irrizari, supra, at 146).

The statute provides that replacement cost may be used if [773]*773market value "cannot be satisfactorily ascertained” (Penal Law § 155.20 [1]), and the testimony of the People’s expert, if credited, permitted the People to use this alternative method of valuation. It was, therefore, proper for the court to charge the jury to this effect.

The defendant’s alternative argument that the People’s proof of replacement cost was insufficient because it did not take into account depreciation in the hands of the owner (People v Harold, 22 NY2d 443), was not raised at trial and thus was not preserved for review.

The other argument raised by the defendant is without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 N.E.2d 271, 79 N.Y.2d 771, 579 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 5095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vientos-ny-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack