Opinion
April 23, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Rose L. Rubin, J.).
The complainant's written statement, which was read in its entirety to the grand jury and which provided detailed information relevant to the value of the stolen automobile, provided a sufficient basis from which the jury could "reasonably infer, rather than merely speculate" (People v Lopez, 79 N.Y.2d 402, 405) as to its value. Moreover, while the complainant's statement was not made under oath, the Court of Appeals has held that a statement that is subscribed beneath a warning such as the one found on the within document, i.e., "False statements made herein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to section 210.45 of the penal law," is "practically as well as theoretically, no different than a statement under oath" (People v Sullivan, 56 N.Y.2d 378, 384). Under these circumstances, we find that the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to sustain the charges, and the indictment should be reinstated.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.