John R., Matter of
| Decision Date | 08 July 1996 |
| Citation | 229 A.D.2d 442,645 N.Y.S.2d 294 |
| Parties | In the Matter of JOHN R. (Anonymous), Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Reed & Neale, White Plains (J. Henry Neale, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.
Marilyn J. Slaatten, County Attorney, White Plains (Stacey Dolgin-Kmetz, Jeffrey P. Goldman, and Linda Trentacoste, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and THOMPSON, KRAUSMAN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeals are from (1) so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered May 5, 1995, as, upon reargument, adhered to a fact-finding order of the same court entered February 27, 1995, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court entered May 30, 1995, which, upon the fact-finding order entered February 27, 1995, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and sentenced him to a conditional discharge for a period of 12 months. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order entered February 27, 1995.
ORDERED that the dispositional order entered May 30, 1995, is modified, on the law, by deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the words "crimes of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the fourth degree, as defined by section 165.45(5) of the Penal Law, a class E felony; and" and substituting therefor the words "crime of"; as so modified the dispositional order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We agree with the appellant's contentions that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that he knowingly was in possession of a stolen car. Knowledge that the property is stolen is a necessary element which may be provided by circumstantial evidence (see, People v. Zorcik, 67 N.Y.2d 670, 499 N.Y.S.2d 674, 490 N.E.2d 541). Thus, a person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. N.R.
...if a vehicle's "ignition locks are damaged," then a person may reasonably know a vehicle is stolen. Matter of John R. , 229 A.D.2d 442, 443, 645 N.Y.S.2d 294 (2d Dep't 1996). Or where a person flees from police, along with other circumstances, a "reasonable inference" may be drawn that a pe......
-
People v. N.R.
...from police, along with other circumstances, a "reasonable inference" may be drawn that a person knows the property they possess is stolen. Id. The universe of allegations from which the People may pull to establish knowing possession of stolen property is large. However, as the Appellate T......
-
People v. Kindler
...charge beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. Cintron, 95 N.Y.2d 329, 332–333, 717 N.Y.S.2d 72, 740 N.E.2d 217; cf. Matter of John R., 229 A.D.2d 442, 443, 645 N.Y.S.2d 294). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see C......
-
Palmieri v. Humenik
...644 N.Y.S.2d 909 ... 229 A.D.2d 442 ... In the Matter of Paul PALMIERI, Appellant, ... Bruce E. HUMENIK, et al., Respondents ... Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, ... Second Department ... ...