From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Arcarola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 7, 1987
135 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

December 7, 1987

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the People, was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

In addition, the issue of the repugnancy of the verdict is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985). In any event, based upon the jury charge, the defendant's acquittal on the charge of burglary in the third degree did not negate an element of grand larceny in the second degree of which the defendant was convicted (see, People v Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, rearg denied 55 N.Y.2d 1039).

We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict based upon newly discovered evidence (see, CPL 330.30; People v Rivera, 108 A.D.2d 829, 830).

Finally, we have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Arcarola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 7, 1987
135 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Arcarola

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FRANK ARCAROLA…

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

Date published: Dec 7, 1987

Citations

135 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Lynch

The issue of the alleged repugnancy of the jury's verdict is not preserved for appellate review as a matter…