People v. Rota, 111 A.D.2d 275 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Rota, 111 A.D.2d 275 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Kopera (nyappdiv, 1992-06-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kopera
N.Y. App. Div. · 1992 · confidence medium
Although the charge on justification was inadequate, that inadequacy does not warrant reversal in the interest of justice because there was strong evidence of guilt to rebut defendant’s justification defense (see, People v Comfort, 113 AD2d 420, 426 , lv denied 67 NY2d 760 ; People v Swinson, 111 AD2d 275, 276-277, lv denied 66 NY2d 922 ; People v Gutierrez, 105 AD2d 754 ; People v Gonzalez, 80 AD2d 543 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lopez
N.Y. App. Div. · 1987 · confidence medium
However, the defendant’s answers to those questions were inconsistent with such a plea, since the defendant did not admit that he intended to cause serious physical injury to the deceased, an essential element of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]; People v Swinson, 111 AD2d 275, 277 [1985]), and raised the question of self-defense.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Goetz (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 1986 · confidence medium
In the Second Department, 10 of the 15 members of that Bench came to the same conclusion (see, People v Powell, 112 AD2d 450 ; People v Swinson, 111 AD2d 275, 277 [Titone, J., concurring in part]; People v Long, 104 AD2d 902 ; People v Wagman, 99 AD2d 519 ; People v Desmond, 93 AD2d 822 ).
cited Cited "see" People v. Kolb
N.Y. App. Div. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
Having failed to do this, any error in this regard has not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Swinson, 111 AD2d 275 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Salvatore Rota
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 13, 1985.
111 A.D.2d 275
1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51395
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.), rendered September 12,1983, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment modified, on the law, by reducing the conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree to one of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and vacating the sentence imposed. As so modified, judgment affirmed.

The People proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as found by the Trial Judge, that defendant was in possession of stolen property. Marylou Murray, the owner of the stolen property, testified that one pair of stolen cufflinks was 18-carat gold and was purchased in Switzerland in 1965 for 250 Swiss francs. She also testified that a stolen floor safe had been purchased in about 1968 for over $150, and that a stolen camera had been purchased in 1965 for over $100. There was no testimony as to the value of the other items stolen, which included some “white” and “yellow metal” jewelry, a Columbia eight-track player, a Remington fluff and dry blow dryer and a safe deposit box. There was no evidence submitted with regard to the market value of any of the stolen items. Under such circumstances, there was insufficient proof to establish that defendant was in possession of stolen property having an aggregate value in excess of $250, a necessary prerequisite for conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree (People v James, 111 AD2d 254; People v Cahill, 83 AD2d 589; People v Bell, 55 AD2d 624; People v Freeman, 44 AD2d 843). However, the evidence presented did establish the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and we have modified the judgment accordingly. There is no need to remit for resentence since defendant has already served the maximum time to which he could be sentenced on the criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree conviction (see, Penal Law §§ 165.40, 70.15 [1]). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.