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. LEWIS MOORE, JR., DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30[1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in admitting in evidence a spreadsheet listing the value of jackets stolen from the retail store and that the evidence of the value of the jackets stolen is legally insufficient to support the conviction. In objecting to the admission of the exhibit in evidence, defendant contended only that it contradicted the testimony of the store owner. We thus conclude that defendant failed to preserve for our review his present contention that the document did not meet the foundational requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see People v. Evans, 59 AD3d 1127, 1128, lv denied 12 NY3d 815; see also People v. Billip, 65 AD3d 430, 430, lv denied 13 NY3d 834; People v. Sanchez, 260 A.D.2d 178, 178–179, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1026). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ). By making only a general motion to dismiss the indictment, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19). In any event, we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: KA 10–00559
Decided: February 06, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)