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. ROBERT C. DIEHL, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of, inter alia, attempted grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 155.35). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the People to reopen their proof to properly identify defendant (see CPL 260.30[7] ). Although defendant is correct that the People initially failed to ask their witnesses on direct examination to identify defendant, the identity of defendant was
“ ‘simple to prove and not hotly contested’ “ (People v. Whipple, 97 N.Y.2d 1, 7).
By failing to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal after presenting evidence, defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61, rearg. denied 97 N.Y.2d 678; People v. Brown, 120 AD3d 1545, 1546, lv denied 24 NY3d 1082). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trial (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). The court “was entitled to reject defendant's version of the events ‘and, upon our review of the record, we cannot say that the court failed to give the evidence the weight that it should be accorded’ “ (People v. McCoy, 100 AD3d 1422, 1422).
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 14–01950
Decided: May 01, 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)