From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Collado

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 31, 2017
146 A.D.3d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

01-31-2017

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roger COLLADO, Defendant–Appellant.

Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Sharmeen Mazumder of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Samuel Z. Goldfine of counsel), for respondent.


Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Sharmeen Mazumder of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Samuel Z. Goldfine of counsel), for respondent.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, WEBBER, GESMER, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered October 15, 2012, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of five years' probation, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing the sentence on the criminal mischief conviction to a term of three years' probation, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant's challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting his grand larceny conviction are unavailing (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). By seizing a fellow bus passenger's phone, refusing to return it and then throwing it out of the bus window into heavy car traffic (which resulted in the phone's destruction) defendant demonstrated an intent to permanently deprive the victim of her phone by withholding it under circumstances that would destroy its economic value, or disposing of it under circumstances rendering it unlikely that the victim would recover it (see Penal Law § 155.00[3] ; People v. Kirnon, 39 A.D.2d 666, 667, 332 N.Y.S.2d 74 [1972], affd. 31 N.Y.2d 877, 340 N.Y.S.2d 183, 292 N.E.2d 319 [1972] ). The evidence supports the conclusion that defendant deliberately deprived the victim of her property, rather than that he was acting recklessly.

As the People concede, the five-year term of probation for the conviction of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, a class A misdemeanor, was unlawful, and we reduce the sentence accordingly.


Summaries of

People v. Collado

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 31, 2017
146 A.D.3d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

People v. Collado

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roger COLLADO…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 31, 2017

Citations

146 A.D.3d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
47 N.Y.S.3d 266
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 582

Citing Cases

People v. Sumpter

A surveillance tape, while not clear, did not contradict this testimony. This conduct was sufficient to…

People v. Collado

Judge: Decision Reported Below: 1st Dept: 146 AD3d 708 (NY)…