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. Robin SINGER, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered March 15, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal trespass in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348–349 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. Defendant's lack of a license to enter the apartment where her estranged niece resided, and defendant's knowledge that her entry was unlawful, were established by both the niece's testimony that she never gave defendant permission to enter and by the totality of the circumstances (see People v. Jackson, 118 AD3d 635 [1st Dept 2014]; People v. Midgette, 115 AD3d 603, 604 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 965 [2014] ). These circumstances included defendant's estrangement from her niece (see People v. Schneiderman, 295 A.D.2d 137, 139 [1st Dept 2002], lv dismissed 98 N.Y.2d 702 [2002] ), the deception defendant used to gain access by conveying the impression to building personnel that she was a resident of the apartment (see People v. Aaron, 233 A.D.2d 231 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 983 [1997] ), the unusual hour and egregious circumstances of the entry (see People v. White, 276 A.D.2d 287 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 740 [2001] ) and defendant's statements evincing her knowledge that her entry was unlawful and her consciousness of guilt (see Jackson, 118 AD3d at 636).
Since defendant never alerted the court to the specific claim she raises on appeal, defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's summation is unpreserved (see People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 911 [2006] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. By referring to the niece as the “tenant” of the apartment, the prosecutor did not act as an unsworn expert witness regarding the niece's right to occupy the apartment. Instead, the prosecutor used the term colloquially and not in a technical legal sense (see People v. Martinez, 95 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 975 [2012] ). In any event, the prosecutor's conduct did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 09, 2014
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)