People v. Ward
Decision Date | 27 May 1986 |
Citation | 503 N.Y.S.2d 74,120 A.D.2d 758 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Stephen WARD, Appellant. |
Court | New 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-
People v. Cullen
...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
...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
-
People v. Andre
...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 ...