From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lyons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 30, 1989
154 A.D.2d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

October 30, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ritter, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the discovery of his fingerprints on the inside lock cover of a safe and on a file drawer located in an office of the burglarized premises, immediately subsequent to the burglary, was legally insufficient evidence to support the conviction of burglary in the third degree. However, as the defendant failed to raise a specific objection on this ground in his motion for a trial order of dismissal, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, affg 125 A.D.2d 207; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245; People v Bailey, 146 A.D.2d 788; cf., People v Kilpatrick, 143 A.D.2d 1). In any event, the circumstantial evidence in this case was sufficient to "exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis" but that of guilt (People v Way, 59 N.Y.2d 361, 363). Two executive employees of the business which occupied the burglarized premises testified that as of the late afternoon of Friday, December 16, 1983, the premises and the safe, which contained, inter alia, money, were secured; and that early the following Monday morning, after having been notified by the police that the alarm on the premises had gone off, they found the safe damaged and property, including money, missing. These witnesses further testified that the defendant had no authority to enter the premises or open the safe. That proof, coupled with the fingerprint evidence, established every element of the crime of burglary in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's contention that the conviction on the burglary charge is inconsistent with the acquittal on the charges of grand larceny and criminal mischief was not preserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to object on this ground prior to the discharge of the jury (see, People v Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745). Moreover, the acquittal on the grand larceny and criminal mischief charges did not negate any element of the crime of burglary in the third degree (see, People v Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1). Spatt, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Lyons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 30, 1989
154 A.D.2d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Lyons

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DANIEL LYONS, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 30, 1989

Citations

154 A.D.2d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
546 N.Y.S.2d 691

Citing Cases

People v. Wright

The defendant further contends that the prosecution failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence that the…

People v. Williams

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove that he…