From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Daymon

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Dec 22, 2017
156 A.D.3d 1417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

1363 KA 13–01186

12-22-2017

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Andrew L. DAYMON, Defendant–Appellant.

MARK D. FUNK, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KATHLEEN P. REARDON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.


MARK D. FUNK, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KATHLEEN P. REARDON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (SCOTT MYLES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, three counts of falsifying business records in the first degree ( Penal Law § 175.10 ), and one count of insurance fraud in the fifth degree (§ 176.10). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to the element of intent to defraud (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Daymon

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Dec 22, 2017
156 A.D.3d 1417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

People v. Daymon

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Andrew L. DAYMON…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 22, 2017

Citations

156 A.D.3d 1417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
156 A.D.3d 1417

Citing Cases

People v. Hill

Here, we conclude that defendant was not in custody at the time she spoke to the Investigator, and thus…

People v. Hill

Here, we conclude that defendant was not in custody at the time she spoke to the Investigator, and thus…