People v. Misevis, 559 N.E.2d 651 (N.Y. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Misevis, 559 N.E.2d 651 (N.Y. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. George, 242 A.D.3d 1447 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2025)
How cited ↗
Cited for
76 N.Y.2d at 779 any reasonable ground to believe” that he was acting under a claim of right. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be…1 citing caseopening of page *779 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • People v. George, 242 A.D.3d 1447 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2025).published 2 cites
    Thus, the evidence provides a valid inference that could lead a rational person to the conclusion that defendant intended to damage the building ( see People v Misevis , 76 NY2d 777, 779 [1990]; People v Hodges , 66 AD3d at 1231 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Kevin Misevis
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 28, 1990.
Published opinion
559 N.E.2d 651
1990 N.Y. LEXIS 1451
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Perry S. Reich, Steven M. Schapiro, Helen Lefkowitz and Deborah Poulos for appellant., Roger H. Mallery, District Attorney (J. Russell Langwig, III, of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant’s primary argument is that the People failed to prove that he intended to damage the property of another (see, Penal Law §§ 145.00, 145.10). We agree with the Appellate Division that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 US 932), the evidence is sufficient. On this record, the jury could properly have concluded that defendant did not have[*779] "any reasonable ground to believe” that he was acting under a claim of right. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved or without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judge Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.