People v. Hart, 795 N.E.2d 31 (N.Y. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Hart, 795 N.E.2d 31 (N.Y. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Chmielewski, 202 A.D.3d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2022)
How cited ↗
Cited for
100 N.Y.2d at 551 Determining unlawful receipt of benefits through misrepresentation3 citing cases2 listed here
  • People v. Chmielewski, 202 A.D.3d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2022).published 2 cites
    The record supports conclusions that in her initial and later forms seeking federal workers' compensation benefits, defendant knowingly made various material misrepresentations of fact, particularly with regard to the facts of an alleged w…
  • People v. Montgomery, 1 A.D.2d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2003).published
    Because the evidence with respect to the burglary charge was legally sufficient at the first trial, we reject the further contention of defendant that his retrial on that charge violates the constitutional prohibition against double jeopar…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
The People of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Dennis Anthony Hart, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 10, 2003.
Published opinion
795 N.E.2d 31
2003 N.Y. LEXIS 1412
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Paul R. Berry of counsel), for appellant., Frank H Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of counsel), for respondent.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read Concur.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The Appellate Division properly determined that, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence at the first trial was legally insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant made a false material statement about a past or presently existing fact and, thus, defendant could not be convicted of grand larceny by false pretenses (see Penal Law § 155.05 [2] [a]; see generally People v Norman, 85 NY2d 609, 619 [1995]).

The People do not challenge the Appellate Division’s ability to review the sufficiency of evidence presented at the first trial on appeal from the conviction after the second trial. Therefore, this issue is not before this Court on this appeal.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, in a memorandum.