People v. Williams, 541 N.E.2d 399 (N.Y. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Williams, 541 N.E.2d 399 (N.Y. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Irvine, 197 A.D.3d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2021)
How cited ↗
Cited for
74 N.Y.2d at 676 Establishing market value for stolen property without expert testimony3 citing cases
  • People v. Irvine, 197 A.D.3d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2021).published
    Contrary to defendant's contention in his main brief, the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the vehicle exceeded $100 inasmuch as the owner testified, without objection, that the vehicle was purchased new for $34,00…
  • People v. Szurgot, 239 A.D.3d 1444 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2025).published 3 cites
    When the stolen property is a vehicle, in the "absen[ce of] expert testimony, proof of the recognized 'book value,' in combination with other testimony, may suffice to establish market value" ( People v Kirkwood , 200 AD2d 409, 410 [1st De…
  • People v. Glover, 69 A.D.3d 877 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People presented legally sufficient proof that he committed the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (see People v Cintron, 95 NY2d 329, 332 [2000]; People v Olaya,…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Larry Williams, Also Known as Benny Robinson, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 1, 1989.
Published opinion
541 N.E.2d 399
1989 N.Y. LEXIS 654
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Sara Bennett and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Ellyn Polshek and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.
Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa Concur.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The People’s evidence, viewed as a whole, was sufficient for the jury to determine that the value of the car defendant had attempted to steal was at least $1,500. The arresting officer, who interrupted defendant in the act of trying to start the car with tools, testified that the vehicle was in “fair to good” condition. The officer’s testimony also demonstrated that the car was in running condition, as he removed a wire from the engine in order to prevent anyone from driving the car away after he left the scene with defendant. The car had been regularly maintained, and it was in fact returned to service by its owner, New York Telephone, after defendant’s arrest. Five photographs of the interior and exterior of the car were admitted into evidence and available for the jurors to inspect for themselves. Finally, there was testimony that the “blue book” value of a car of that model and year was nearly $1,000 over the statutory $1,500 minimum. This evidence sufficiently established that the market value of the car was more than $1,500 (People v Carter, 19 NY2d 967).

To the extent preserved, there is no merit in defendant’s contention that he was denied a right to file a pro se supplemental brief (see, People v White, 73 NY2d 468).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

[*677] Order affirmed in a memorandum.