People v. Zimmerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zimmerman

144 A.D.2d 946, 534 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14419

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1988·Published

Opinion

Judgment unanimously re[947]*947versed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Because no direct proof was presented that defendant knew of any false statements on the loan applications or that he benefited from the loans, the trial court erred in refusing defense counsel’s request to give a circumstantial evidence charge (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 441-443; People v Rodriquez, 134 AD2d 153).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J. — grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously re[947]*947versed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Because no direct proof was presented that defendant knew of any false statements on the loan applications or that he benefited from the loans, the trial court erred in refusing defense counsel’s request to give a circumstantial evidence charge (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 441-443; People v Rodriquez, 134 AD2d 153).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J. — grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

People v. Zimmerman, 144 A.D.2d 946, 534 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

144 A.D.2d 946 (People v. Zimmerman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related