People v. Medina
| Decision Date | 18 June 1985 |
| Citation | 490 N.Y.S.2d 491,111 A.D.2d 653 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lucio MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
E. Berger, New York City, for respondent.
S. Levine, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and SANDLER, CARRO, ROSENBERGER and ELLERIN, JJ.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered December 16, 1983, which convicted defendant, after a bench trial, of attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, possession of an imitation pistol, acting as a dealer in second-hand articles without a license, and failing to keep a record of purchases and sales and which sentenced him to 12 weeks intermittent weekend incarceration and probation for the remainder of a five-year period, plus a fine of $2,500.00 for the attempted criminal possession of stolen property, a fine of $250.00 for the conviction of possession of an imitation pistol, a fine of $500.00 for the conviction of acting as a dealer in second-hand articles without a license and a fine of $500.00 for the conviction of failing to keep a record of purchases and sales, is modified, on the law and facts, to the extent of reducing from first to second degree the conviction of attempted criminal possession of stolen property, vacating the sentence imposed on that count and remanding for sentencing on the reduced count, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed.
Defendant is the owner of Bullion Trading Company, Inc., and is engaged in the business of smelting, refining and converting gold into bullion. As a result of tips identifying defendant as a purchaser of stolen jewelry, an undercover operation was planned to attempt to sell stolen property to defendant. A primary issue on appeal concerns the proper valuation of the stolen property defendant attempted to purchase. To obtain a conviction of first-degree criminal possession of stolen property, the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the property exceeds $1500.00. P.L. § 165.50. If the value of the property is less than that, but more than $250.00, the crime of criminal possession of stolen property is only one of the second-degree. P.L. § 165.45. While we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to find that defendant did attempt to possess stolen property, we find that the People failed to meet their burden of proving that the value of the property exceeded $1,500.00.
The jewelry defendant attempted to purchase consisted of rings, chains, a watchcase without the movement, other watch parts, medallions and bracelets. Some of the chains were broken and missing clasps. In other words, the jewelry was not in new condition. Detective Lorig, a jewelry expert, testified that the scrap value of the stolen jewelry defendant attempted to purchase was about $1000.00 and its replacement value approximately $2000.00. Despite a careful reading of this expert's testimony, we are unable to find any testimony indicating that the depreciated condition of the jewelry was taken into account in arriving at this replacement value. Neither was there any testimony as to the selling market for watchcases without movements or other watch parts. Generally, property is to be valued according to its retail price, the price a thief would have to pay on the market were he to purchase the goods legitimately. People v. Irrizari, 5 N.Y.2d 142, 145-146, 182 N.Y.S.2d 142, 156 N.E.2d 69. However, the condition of an item and the extent of its use or deterioration are certainly factors in determining what price a person would be willing to pay for the item were he buying it legitimately. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Borriello
...tapes was poor and their physical appearance altered. These factors had to be considered in determining "value" (People v. Medina, 111 A.D.2d 653, 490 N.Y.S.2d 491, supra; People v. Rivera, 114 A.D.2d 305, 493 N.Y.S.2d 562, supra; People v. Corbett, 129 A.D.2d 433, 514 N.Y.S.2d 21, Further,......
-
Bullock v. State
...New York case, the witness testifying about value was not the property owner—he was an expert witness. See People v. Medina, 111 A.D.2d 653, 490 N.Y.S.2d 491, 492 (N.Y.App.Div.1985). In the Colorado case, the court did not specify whether the evidence of value came from the property owner, ......
-
People v. Vientos
...efforts]; People v. Rivera, 114 A.D.2d 305, 493 N.Y.S.2d 562 [second hand stolen car in damaged condition]; People v. Medina, 111 A.D.2d 653, 490 N.Y.S.2d 491, app. dism. 67 N.Y.2d 644, 499 N.Y.S.2d 682, 490 N.E.2d 548 [broken up jewelry and watch parts]. Since replacement value only comes ......
-
People v. Medjdoubi
...five days prior to theft must reflect that it was no longer new and the effect of the installation operation]; People v. Medina, 111 A.D.2d 653, 490 N.Y.S.2d 491 [1st Dept.1985] [condition of stolen jewelry and the extent of its use or deterioration must be considered] No statutory language......