From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 3, 2006
33 A.D.3d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

No. 9100.

October 3, 2006.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara F. Newman, J.), rendered January 8, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of auto stripping in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 1½ to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.


The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. Although the registered owner of the subject vehicle did not testify, her husband's testimony established that he had a possessory interest that was superior to defendant's interest ( cf. Penal Law § 155.00 [definition of "owner" for larceny purposes]) and that defendant did not have permission to damage the car. Moreover, even if neither the owner nor her husband had testified, the circumstantial evidence would have established the element of lack of permission beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Borrero, 26 NY2d 430, 435-436; Matter of Kevin B., 128 AD2d 63, 70, affd 71 NY2d 835; People v Shurn, 69 AD2d 64, 67).


Summaries of

People v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 3, 2006
33 A.D.3d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People v. Torres

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TIDER TORRES, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 3, 2006

Citations

33 A.D.3d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 7106
822 N.Y.S.2d 248

Citing Cases

People v. Negron

To the extent defendant is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, that claim is likewise unpreserved…