TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Bernard

The People of the State of New York v. Omar Bernard

People v. Bernard, 123 A.D.2d 324 (1986)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
September 8, 1986
Citations
123 A.D.2d 324506 N.Y.S.2d 2811986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60099

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Curci, J.), rendered January 17, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment modified, on the law, by reducing the conviction of grand larceny in the third degree to one of petit larceny, and vacating the sentence imposed thereon. As so modified, judgment affirmed.

The People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant burglarized an apartment and stole therefrom $75 to $100 in coins and a stereo. However, the only evidence concerning the value of the stereo was the victim’s testimony that the stereo was worth $700. Although photographs of the stereo equipment were admitted in evidence, the victim never testified as to the basis of her opinion, never testified as to when the stereo was purchased or the price paid, and never testified about the condition of the stereo. The evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant had stolen property having an aggregate value of over $250, a necessary prerequisite for the conviction of grand larceny in the third degree under the indictment (Penal Law § 155.30; see, People v Appedu, 111 AD2d 761 ; People v Jackson, 111 AD2d 253 ; People v McKoy, 79 AD2d 665 ; People v Liquori, 24 AD2d 456 ). How *325 ever, the evidence presented did establish the crime of petit larceny, and we have modified the judgment accordingly. There is no need to remit for resentencing since the defendant has already served the maximum time to which he could be sentenced on the petit larceny conviction (see, People v Appedu, supra; People v Womble, 111 AD2d 283 ).

We have considered the defendant’s other claims and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Brown, J. P., Niehoif, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1989: 11991: 11992: 11994: 11995: 21997: 11998: 11999: 12004: 119892026peak 1995 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Lopez592 N.E.2d 1360 (N.Y. 1992)
  2. People v. Gonzalez221 A.D.2d 203 (1995)
  3. People v. Vandenburg254 A.D.2d 532 (1998)
  4. People v. Nixon156 A.D.2d 144 (1989)
  5. People v. Jackman8 A.D.3d 678 (2004)
  6. People v. Hernandez203 A.D.2d 479 (1994)

Most recent

  1. People v. Jackman8 A.D.3d 678 (2004)
  2. People v. Woodford259 A.D.2d 717 (1999)
  3. People v. Vandenburg254 A.D.2d 532 (1998)
  4. People v. Duran238 A.D.2d 351 (1997)
  5. People v. Gonzalez221 A.D.2d 203 (1995)
  6. People v. Ramjattan217 A.D.2d 597 (1995)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Appedu, 111 A.D.2d 761 (1985) 2
People v. Womble, 111 A.D.2d 283 (1985) 22
People v. Jackson, 111 A.D.2d 253 (1985) 10
People v. Liquori, 24 A.D.2d 456 (1965) 3
People v. McKoy, 79 A.D.2d 665 (1980) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list