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. NICHOLAS J. BOAZ, 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 upon a nonjury verdict of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25[2] ). According to the evidence that the People presented at trial, defendant and an accomplice broke into a residence, stole various items, and fled when they discovered that one of the residents was in the home.
We reject defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction because the testimony of his accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated. The accomplice's testimony was amply corroborated by, inter alia, the testimony of disinterested witnesses, defendant's own statement to the police, and physical evidence, as well as the testimony of a jailhouse informant (see generally CPL 60.22[1]; People v. Reome, 15 NY3d 188, 192–193; People v. Lipford, 129 AD3d 1528, 1529). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this bench 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). Finally, we reject defendant's contention that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709; People v. Kurkowski, 117 AD3d 1442, 1443–1444; People v. Hughes, 148 A.D.2d 1002, 1002, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 741, reconsideration denied 74 N.Y.2d 848).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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: KA 13–01960
Decided: March 18, 2016
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)