Opinion
No. 1452 Ind No. 1973/16 Case No. 2017-3061
01-18-2024
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mamadou Coulibaly, Defendant-Appellant.
Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Donner of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Conor E. Byrnes of counsel), for respondent.
Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Donner of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Conor E. Byrnes of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Oing, J.P., Kennedy, Mendez, Rodriguez, Michael, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered January 11, 2017, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's legal insufficiency claims are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject them on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The element of force required for the robbery conviction was established by the testimonial evidence and surveillance video footage. That evidence showed defendant grabbing two cell phones attached to the display shelf by a black cord and ripping them from the display (see People v Lewis, 204 A.D.3d 502, 502 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1034 [2022]; People v Gonzalez, 60 A.D.3d 447, 447-448 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 915 [2009]). It also showed defendant pushing an employee to overcome the employee's attempt to prevent defendant from leaving the store with the stolen property (id.). The jury could have reasonably inferred from the store employee's unrefuted testimony on the pricing of the cell phones that the combined value of the phones exceeded the statutory threshold for the grand larceny and criminal possession convictions (see People v Irrizari, 5 N.Y.2d 142, 146 [1959]; People v Reid, 169 A.D.3d 602, 602 [1st Dept 2019]), even if the phones may have depreciated in value as display models (see People v Seador, 169 A.D.3d 619, 620 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 981 [2019]).