Judgment modified, on the law, by reducing the conviction of grand larceny in the third degree to one of petit larceny. As so modified, judgment affirmed.
Defendant correctly contends that the proof submitted by the People was insufficient to establish that he had stolen property having an aggregate market value in excess of $250 at the time of theft, as required for a conviction of grand larceny in the third degree (see Penal Law, § 155.30; cf. People v Bell...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
