From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 10, 2005
16 A.D.3d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

5589.

March 10, 2005.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert I. Altman, J.), rendered September 18, 2003, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 1½ to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.


The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). The totality of the actions of defendant and his companion, with particular reference to their suspicious repetition of some of these actions, leads to the inescapable conclusion that defendant acted in concert with the other man in taking the victim's property.

The court properly exercised its discretion in receiving limited expert testimony on techniques used by pickpocket teams ( see People v. Right, 180 AD2d 430, lv denied 79 NY2d 952). To the extent that there was any improper statistical evidence, it was not prejudicial, particularly in a nonjury trial where the court is deemed capable of disregarding such evidence ( see People v. Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 406).


Summaries of

People v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 10, 2005
16 A.D.3d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

People v. Perez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JUAN PEREZ, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 10, 2005

Citations

16 A.D.3d 191 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
791 N.Y.S.2d 40

Citing Cases

State v. Nicholas

05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the…

People v. Seymour

05; People v Anthony, 21 AD3d 903). In any event, those contentions are without merit ( see People v Chin, 69…