People v. Yates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Yates

128 A.D.2d 571, 512 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44263

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 571 (People v. Yates) 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. Yates, 128 A.D.2d 571, 512 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cohen, J.), rendered April 11, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the People adduced sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the property which he and his companions stole from the complainant’s variety store had a market value in excess of $1,500 (see generally, People v Irrizari, 5 NY2d 142; People v Washington, 110 AD2d 797). Moreover, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), we conclude that there was sufficient proof to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.

Similarly unavailing is the defendant’s claim that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the court’s Sandoval ruling. The record demonstrates that the trial court engaged in a thorough balancing of the probative value and the preju[572]*572dicial effect of an inquiry into the defendant’s prior convictions (see, People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236), and we discern no abuse of discretion in the compromise ruling which it made (see, e.g., People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v Scott, 118 AD2d 881).

The defendant’s remaining contention concerning the improper release of evidence by the police has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Washington, supra), nor do we find that the defendant suffered any prejudice as a result of the alleged error (see, e.g., People v Cruz, 99 AD2d 406; People v Angelo, 93 AD2d 264). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cohen, J.), rendered April 11, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, grand larceny in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the People adduced sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the property which he and his companions stole from the complainant’s variety store had a market value in excess of $1,500 (see generally, People v Irrizari, 5 NY2d 142; People v Washington, 110 AD2d 797). Moreover, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), we conclude that there was sufficient proof to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.

Similarly unavailing is the defendant’s claim that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the court’s Sandoval ruling. The record demonstrates that the trial court engaged in a thorough balancing of the probative value and the preju[572]*572dicial effect of an inquiry into the defendant’s prior convictions (see, People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236), and we discern no abuse of discretion in the compromise ruling which it made (see, e.g., People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v Scott, 118 AD2d 881).

The defendant’s remaining contention concerning the improper release of evidence by the police has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Washington, supra), nor do we find that the defendant suffered any prejudice as a result of the alleged error (see, e.g., People v Cruz, 99 AD2d 406; People v Angelo, 93 AD2d 264). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 571, 512 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-yates-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack