From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Marshall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 2002
293 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-04242

Argued March 7, 2002.

April 15, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered June 29, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (M. Chris Fabricant of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A. Grob, and Justin M. Sher of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the complainant named in the indictment owned the property taken by the defendant (see Penal Law § 155.05). The People established that the named complainant, an accountant working in his client's office, had a right of possession to the office equipment taken which was superior to that of the defendant (see Penal Law § 155.00; § 155.05; § 160.00; People v. Hutchinson, 56 N.Y.2d 868; cf People v. Wilson, 93 N.Y.2d 222).

ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Marshall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 15, 2002
293 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. RONELL MARSHALL, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 15, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
740 N.Y.S.2d 245

Citing Cases

People v. Stuart

In addition, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson, 9…

People v. Julien

rely on the victim's unchallenged testimony that the item was her credit card,” where “[a] sufficiently…