People v. Box

30 Citing cases

  1. People v. Wine

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 34731 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 2023)

    Pursuant to PL § 155.20 (1), "value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime, or if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the crime." "Any person who testifies as to the value of an item 'must provide a basis of knowledge for his [or her] statement of value before it can be accepted as legally sufficient evidence of such value'" (People v Sutherland, 102 A.D.3d 897, 898 [2d Dept 2013], quoting People v Lopez, 79 N.Y.2d402,404 [1992]; see People v Piasta, 207 A.D.3d 1054, 1058 [4th Dept 2022], Iv. denied 38 N.Y.3d 1190 [2022]; People v Box, 181 A.D.3d 1238, 1241 [4th Dept 2020], Iv. denied 35 N.Y.3d 1025 [2020]; People v Slack, 137 A.D.3d 1568, 1569 [4th Dept 2016], Iv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1139 [2016]). "'Conclusory statements and rough estimates of value' that are unsupported by a basis of knowledge are insufficient" (People v Sutherland, 102 A.D.3d at 899, quoting People v Loomis, 56 A.D.3d 1046, 1047 [3d Dept 2008]; see People v Box, 181 A.D.3d at 1241; People v Slack, 137 A.D.3d at 1569; People v Walker, 119 A.D.3d 1402, 1402-1403 [4th Dept 2014]; People v Pallagi, 91 A.D.3d 1266, 1269 [4th Dept 2012]).

  2. People v. Bruno

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 34730 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 2023)

    Pursuant to PL § 155.20 (1), "value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime, or if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the crime." "Any person who testifies as to the value of an item 'must provide a basis of knowledge for his [or her] statement of value before it can be accepted as legally sufficient evidence of such value'" (People v Sutherland, 102 A.D.3d 897, 898 [2d Dept 2013], quoting People v Lopez, 79 N.Y.2d 402,404 [1992]; see People v Piasta, 207 A.D.3d 1054, 1058 [4th Dept 2022], Iv. denied 38 N.Y.3d 1190 [2022]; People v Box, 181 A.D.3d 1238, 1241 [4th Dept 2020], Iv. denied 35 N.Y.3d 1025 [2020]; People v Slack, 137 A.D.3d 1568, 1569 [4th Dept 2016], Iv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1139 [2016]). '"Conclusory statements and rough estimates of value' that are unsupported by a basis of knowledge are insufficient" (People v Sutherland, 102 A.D.3d at 899, quoting People v Loomis, 56 A.D.3d 1046, 1047 [3d Dept 2008]; see People v Box, 181 A.D.3d at 1241; People v Slack, 137 A.D.3d at 1569; People v Walker, 119 A.D.3d 1402, 1402-1403 [4th Dept 2014]; People v Pallagi, 91 A.D.3d 1266, 1269 [4th Dept 2012]).

  3. People v. Suarez

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 34690 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 2022)

    Pursuant to PL § 155.20 (1), "value means the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime, or if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the crime." "Any person who testifies as to the value of an item 'must provide a basis of knowledge for his [or her] statement of value before it can be accepted as legally sufficient evidence of such value'" (People v Sutherland, 102 A.D.3d 897, 898 [2d Dept 2013], quoting People v Lopez, 79 N.Y.2d 402,404 [1992]; see People v Piasta, 207 A.D.3d 1054, 1058 [4th Dept 2022], Iv. denied 38 N.Y.3d 1190 [2022]; People v Box, 181 A.D.3d 1238, 1241 [4th Dept 2020], Iv. denied 35 N.Y.3d 1025 [2020]; People v Slack, 137 A.D.3d 1568, 1569 [4th Dept 2016], Iv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1139 [2016]). "'Conclusory statements and rough estimates of value' that are unsupported by a basis of knowledge are insufficient" (People v Sutherland, 102 A.D.3d at 899, quoting People v Loomis, 56 A.D.3d 1046, 1047 [3d Dept 2008]; see People v Box, 181 A.D.3d at 1241; People v Slack, 137 A.D.3d at 1569; People v Walker, 119 A.D.3d 1402, 1402-1403 [4th Dept 2014]; People v Pallagi, 91 A.D.3d 1266, 1269 [4th Dept 2012]).

  4. Box v. Lilley

    No. 23-7986 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2024)

    In 2017, Box was convicted in New York state court of nine criminal charges arising out of an incident in which he allegedly stabbed a victim, set the victim's house on fire, and stole the victim's vehicle. People v. Box, 181 A.D.3d 1238, 123839 (N.Y.App.Div. 2020).

  5. Box v. Lilley

    9:22-CV-1093 (DNH) (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    [Petitioner] gave a statement to the police admitting that he stabbed the victim, but claimed he did so in self-defense." People v. Box, 181 A.D.3d 1238, 1238 (4th Dep't 2022).,

  6. People v. Lacey

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 3980 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Next, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant fully preserved for our review her challenges to the testimony of a police investigator, we conclude that any error in admitting that testimony is likewise harmless (see People v Box, 181 A.D.3d 1238, 1242 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1025 [2020], cert denied - U.S. -, 141 S.Ct. 1099 [2021]; see generally People v Inoa, 25 N.Y.3d 466, 472, 475-477 [2015]; Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d at 241-242). Here, "the [circumstantial] proof of defendant's commission of the charged crimes was overwhelming and we perceive no significant probability that, but for the error, the verdict, as it bore upon defendant, would have been less adverse"

  7. People v. Lacey

    229 A.D.3d 1270 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    We further conclude that, to the extent that the forensic pathologist’s spontaneous comment on the thoroughness of the police investigation constituted improper bolstering testimony, any error in admitting that testimony is harmless (see People v. Janes, 142 A.D.3d 1383, 1384-1385, 38 N.Y.S.3d 357 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1073, 47 N.Y.S.3d 231, 69 N.E.3d 1027 [2016]; People v. Gibson, 137 A.D.3d 1657, 1658, 27 N.Y.S.3d 772 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1151, 39 N.Y.S.3d 385, 62 N.E.3d 125 [2016]; see generally Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d at 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787). [6] Next, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant fully preserved for our review her challenges to the testimony of a police investigator, we conclude that any error in admitting that testimony is likewise harmless (see Peoplev.Box, 181 A.D.3d 1238, 1242, 119 N.Y.S.3d 650 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1025, 126 N.Y.S.3d 24, 149 N.E.3d 862 [2020], cert denied — U.S. —, 141 S.Ct. 1099, 208 L.Ed.2d 548 [2021]; see generally People v. Inoa, 25 N.Y.3d 466, 472, 475-477, 13 N.Y.S.3d 329, 34 N.E.3d 839 [2015]; Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d at 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787). Here, "the [circumstantial] proof of defendant’s commission of the charged crimes was overwhelming and we perceive no significant probability that, but for the error, the verdict, as it bore upon defendant, would have been less adverse"

  8. People v. Ingleston

    217 A.D.3d 1571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    "The fact that defendant used force in obtaining entry to the [house] by breaking the glass window[ ] ... ‘amply supports the inference that he had criminal intent’ " ( People v. Bergman , 70 A.D.3d 1494, 1494, 894 N.Y.S.2d 635 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 885, 903 N.Y.S.2d 774, 929 N.E.2d 1009 [2010] ; seePeople v. Gelling , 163 A.D.3d 1489, 1492, 82 N.Y.S.3d 679 [4th Dept. 2018], amended on rearg 164 A.D.3d 1673, 82 N.Y.S.3d 759 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1003, 86 N.Y.S.3d 762, 111 N.E.3d 1118 [2018] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the jury's rejection of the affirmative defense of duress is not against the weight of the evidence (see generallyBleakley , 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ; People v. Box , 181 A.D.3d 1238, 1240, 119 N.Y.S.3d 650 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1025, 126 N.Y.S.3d 24, 149 N.E.3d 862 [2020], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 1099, 208 L.Ed.2d 548 [2021] ; People v. Hammond , 84 A.D.3d 1726, 1726, 922 N.Y.S.2d 706 [4th Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 816, 929 N.Y.S.2d 805, 954 N.E.2d 96 [2011] ). We reject defendant's further contention that County Court erred in denying his request to charge criminal trespass in the second degree as a lesser included offense of the count of burglary in the second degree (see generallyPeople v. Cajigas , 19 N.Y.3d 697, 701-702, 955 N.Y.S.2d 296, 979 N.E.2d 240 [2012] ).

  9. People v. Ingleston

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 3640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    "The fact that defendant used force in obtaining entry to the [house] by breaking the glass window[ ]... 'amply supports the inference that he had criminal intent'" (People v Bergman, 70 A.D.3d 1494, 1494 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 885 [2010]; see People v Gelling, 163 A.D.3d 1489, 1492 [4th Dept 2018], amended on rearg 164 A.D.3d 1673 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1003 [2018]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the jury's rejection of the affirmative defense of duress is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495; People v Box, 181 A.D.3d 1238, 1240 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1025 [2020], cert denied - U.S. -, 141 S.Ct. 1099 [2021]; People v Hammond, 84 A.D.3d 1726, 1726 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 816 [2011]).

  10. People v. Elmore

    211 A.D.3d 1536 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 13 times

    Here, the detective testified that he obtained data from cell phone companies, which he then inputted into the software to create a report. Contrary to defendant's contention, the detective testified to factual matters within his knowledge and did not provide an expert opinion (seePeople v. Carducci , 143 A.D.3d 1260, 1261, 38 N.Y.S.3d 678 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1143, 52 N.Y.S.3d 295, 74 N.E.3d 680 [2017] ; cf.People v. Ortiz , 168 A.D.3d 482, 483, 91 N.Y.S.3d 90 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 979, 101 N.Y.S.3d 236, 124 N.E.3d 725 [2019] ; see alsoPeople v. Box , 181 A.D.3d 1238, 1242, 119 N.Y.S.3d 650 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1025, 126 N.Y.S.3d 24, 149 N.E.3d 862 [2020], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 1099, 208 L.Ed.2d 548 [2021] ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (seePeople v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generallyPeople v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ).