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. Jeff SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered December 9, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of forgery in the second degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 31/212 to 7 years and 1 year, respectively, and convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a consecutive term of 11/212 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence from which the jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant forged the rental agreement in question. We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence.
The court properly permitted amendment of the forgery count. Even without the amendment, this count of the indictment sufficiently charged defendant with forgery in the second degree, because its reference to the document as a “rental authorization”, coupled with its reference to the applicable Penal Law section, provided defendant with fair notice of the charge (see, People v. Ray, 71 N.Y.2d 849, 527 N.Y.S.2d 740, 522 N.E.2d 1037). In any event, the court's amendment of this count did not change the theory of the prosecution or prejudice defendant (see, CPL 200.70[1] ).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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.
Decided: June 22, 1999
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)