Munoz v. 608-610 Realty Corp., 194 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Munoz v. 608-610 Realty Corp., 194 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Francis (nyappdiv, 2010-11-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Francis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
“The People are not required to specify any particular theory of larceny in the indictment . . . [, and t]he present indictment and discovery provided sufficient information to prepare and present a defense” (People v Cannon, 194 AD2d 496, 498 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 715 [1993]; see People v Farruggia, 41 AD2d 894 [1973]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Norman
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2004 · confidence medium
(See People v Duffy, 231 AD2d 586 [2d Dept 1996]; People v Cannon, 194 AD2d 496, 498 [1st Dept 1993]; People v Farruggia, 41 AD2d 894 [4th Dept 1973].) Here the grand larceny count nonetheless specifically alleges that the defendant committed the larceny “by means of false pretenses.” This form of larceny, Penal Law § 155.05 (2), is committed when a person obtains possession of personal property by means of “a false material statement about a past or presently existing fact.” CPeople v Norman, 85 NY2d 609, 619 [1995]; Penal Law § 155.05 [2] [a]; see, People v Churchill, 47 NY2d 151, …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Tighe
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
The first count of the indictment was not duplicitous (see generally CPL 200.30 [1]; People v Davis, 72 NY2d 32, 38 [1988]) by virtue of the fact that it might have been interpreted as alleging both larceny by false pretenses and larceny by false promise (see People v Watson, 284 AD2d 212, 213 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 643 [2001]; People v Pillich, 207 AD2d 1004 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 938 [1994]; People v Cannon, 194 AD2d 496,498-499 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 715 [1993]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McNamara
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
In any event, it was not error for the People to wait until the close of their case to specify which theory of larceny they were proceeding under (see Penal Law § 155.45 [1]; People v Sala, 258 AD2d 182, 190 [1999], affd 95 NY2d 254 [2000]; People v Pillich, 207 AD2d 1004, 1004 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 938 [1994]; People v Cannon, 194 AD2d 496, 498 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 715 [1993]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Pillich
N.Y. App. Div. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
The People .are not required to allege "the particular theory of larceny” in the indictment (Penal Law § 155.45 [1]; see, People v Farruggia, 41 AD2d 894 ), and Supreme Court, as trier of the facts, was entitled to consider the proof supporting both theories under the single count of the indictment (see, People v Cannon, 194 AD2d 496 , lv denied 82 NY2d 715 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Serra v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
Under these circumstances, and in light of the fact that an MRI report is data which is "of the kind ordinarily accepted by experts in the field”, it was not error for the trial court to permit Dr. Lehman to testify with respect to the MRI report (People v Sugden, 35 NY2d 453, 459 ; see also, Munoz v 608-610 Realty Corp., 194 AD2d 496 ; Flamio v State of New York, 132 AD2d 594 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Persia Munoz
v.
608-610 Realty Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 29, 1993.
194 A.D.2d 496
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered on or about February 6, 1992, upon a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, awarding damages of $15,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The report of plaintiffs consulting surgeon was evidence of a kind accepted in the medical profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion (see, Borden v Brady, 92 AD2d 983; Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723, 726), and thus defense counsel’s reference to the report in cross-examining plaintiffs treating physician, and use of the findings contained therein in propounding hypothetical questions to one of defendants’ medical experts, was proper and does not warrant the granting of a new trial on the issue of damages. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.