Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mamadou COULIBALY, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered January 11, 2017, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's legal insufficiency claims are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject them on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007]). The element of force required for the robbery conviction was established by the testimonial evidence and surveillance video footage. That evidence showed defendant grabbing two cell phones attached to the display shelf by a black cord and ripping them from the display (see People v. Lewis, 204 A.D.3d 502, 502, 164 N.Y.S.3d 451 [1st Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1034, 169 N.Y.S.3d 218, 189 N.E.3d 325 [2022]; People v. Gonzalez, 60 A.D.3d 447, 447–448, 874 N.Y.S.2d 118 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 915, 884 N.Y.S.2d 696, 912 N.E.2d 1077 [2009]). It also showed defendant pushing an employee to overcome the employee's attempt to prevent defendant from leaving the store with the stolen property (id.). The jury could have reasonably inferred from the store employee's unrefuted testimony on the pricing of the cell phones that the combined value of the phones exceeded the statutory threshold for the grand larceny and criminal possession convictions (see People v. Irrizari, 5 N.Y.2d 142, 146, 182 N.Y.S.2d 361, 156 N.E.2d 69 [1959]; People v. Reid, 169 A.D.3d 602, 602, 94 N.Y.S.3d 102 [1st Dept. 2019]), even if the phones may have depreciated in value as display models (see People v. Seador, 169 A.D.3d 619, 620, 94 N.Y.S.3d 67 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 981, 101 N.Y.S.3d 255, 124 N.E.3d 744 [2019]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 1452
Decided: January 18, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)