People v. Ward

Decision Date27 May 1986
Citation503 N.Y.S.2d 74,120 A.D.2d 758
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Stephen WARD, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Cherico and Stix, White Plains (Wayne P. Stix, of counsel), for appellant.

Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Mark C. Dillon and Anthony J. Servino, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and THOMPSON, RUBIN and LAWRENCE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), rendered January 8, 1982, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant's claim of error with respect to the court's charge has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Hoke, 62 N.Y.2d 1022, 479 N.Y.S.2d 495, 468 N.E.2d 677). In any event, the court properly instructed the jury, in accordance with Penal Law §§ 155.00(3) and 155.05(1), that a person is guilty of larceny when he wrongfully takes another's property with the intent to permanently deprive him of that property or deprive him of it for so extended a period of time that a major portion of its economic value is lost (see, People v. Blacknall, 63 N.Y.2d 912, 483 N.Y.S.2d 206, 472 N.E.2d 1034; People v. Britt, 61 A.D.2d 1017, 402 N.Y.S.2d 617).

Additionally, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to establish all the elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932).

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People v. Cullen
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 14, 1988
    ...value is lost (Penal Law § 155.05[1]; People v. Blacknall, 63 N.Y.2d 912, 913-914, 483 N.Y.S.2d 206, 472 N.E.2d 1034; People v. Ward, 120 A.D.2d 758, 759, 503 N.Y.S.2d 74). The record reveals a reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's intent to permanently deprive his employer of the vehi......
  • People v. Johnston
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 13, 1992
    ...was excessive to the extent indicated. The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Ward, 120 A.D.2d 758, 503 N.Y.S.2d 74; CPL 470.05[2], and we decline to address it in the exercise of our interest of justice ...
  • People v. Eyre
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 7, 1988
  • People v. Andre
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 3, 1989
    ...the concept of "permanency" as employed in the definitions of "deprive" and "appropriate" was already before it (see, People v. Ward, 120 A.D.2d 758, 503 N.Y.S.2d 74; People v. Monahan, 103 A.D.2d 833, 478 N.Y.S.2d ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT