People v. Newman
| Decision Date | 21 February 1975 |
| Citation | 365 N.Y.S.2d 409,80 Misc.2d 975 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Irving NEWMAN, Defendant. |
| Court | New York City Court |
A motion to acquit has been made by the defendant after trial. The defendant is charged with violation of § 155.25 of the Penal Law in that he did steal certain property belonging to, or in the custody of complainant, Mr. James Yew, an art dealer. The defendant made three visits (November 17, 1973, November 27, 1973 and December 1, 1973) to the premises of the complainant, Mr. Yew, and did obtain certain paintings and sculpture. These works of art, according to Mr. Yew, were requested for sale. The proceeds minus defendant's commission were to be transmitted upon completion of each transaction.
The witness, Mr. Yew, alleged that almost $12,000 of merchandise was obtained in this manner. The complainant further testified that he never received either the proceeds or merchandise, although duly demanded of the defendant on several occasions, both orally and in writing.
Counsel stipulated to the concession that the defendant had sold a portion of the merchandise to Andrew Crisipo. The People presented as a witnesses, Detective Pat Balardo, who stated that as a result of her interview with Mr. Yew in April, 1974, and a conversation on July 11, 1974, she and her partner, Detective Volpe, proceeded to the defendant's apartment at 77 Columbia Street, Apartment 18J. She said that through her expertise she recognized certain paintings owned by Mr. James Yew and she conversed with the defendant concerning these paintings. She asked the defendant why he didn't pay the complainant. She stated that there had been several similar complaints from other art dealers about the defendant namely, that he would accept works of art on consignment and never pay for them or return them. She testified that defendant answered 'So what?', even though he added that when he had the money, he would pay for them. She asked the defendant whether or not he received letters, memoranda or notes, that the complainant, James Yew, left at the defendant's home or sent through the mail. The defendant stated 'I've got every piece of paper that anybody ever sent me.' He acknowledged that one other dealer was suing him for the return of merchandise.
Defendant relies on § 155.05 subd. 2(d), which reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Norman
...N.Y.2d 430, 311 N.Y.S.2d 475, 259 N.E.2d 902; People v. Cleague, supra; People v. Bearden, 290 N.Y. 478, 49 N.E.2d 785; People v. Newman, 80 Misc.2d 975, 365 N.Y.S.2d 409, affd. 85 Misc.2d 761, 382 N.Y.S.2d 227), thereby confirming that this Court has not previously viewed Penal Law § 155.0......
-
People v. Jennings, 638
...People v. Cleague, 22 N.Y.2d 363, 292 N.Y.S.2d 861, 239 N.E.2d 617, People v. Bearden, 290 N.Y. 478, 49 N.E.2d 785, and People v. Newman, 80 Misc.2d 975, 365 N.Y.S.2d 409, affd. 85 Misc.2d 761, 382 N.Y.S.2d 227, the court demanded that the People's evidence be " ' "wholly inconsistent with ......
- People ex rel. Dioguardi v. Warden of Rikers Island Penitentiary
-
People v. Ryan
...to the custodial account. The statute sets forth a high standard of proof for establishment of the defendant's intent (People v. Newman, 80 Misc.2d 975, 365 N.Y.S.2d 409). The facts, as specifically required by the statute, must be "wholly consistent with guilty intent or belief and wholly ......