From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ryan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 18, 1992
180 A.D.2d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

February 18, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The record reveals that the defendant was found in the complainant's apartment in front of his dresser, with the drawer open, holding a pair of his socks. Despite the fact that the defendant and the complainant were previously acquainted, the complainant testified that he had left the door to his apartment locked, and had not given the defendant permission to enter the apartment. Although the lock was not broken, the complainant testified that the door catch had been pushed in. Under the circumstances, the jury could have drawn the inference that the defendant knowingly made an unlawful entry with the intent to commit a crime (see, People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 381; People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274, 279; People v. Smith, 144 A.D.2d 600). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).

The defendant's claim that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on temporary possession of property is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to request such a charge and raised no objection to the court's failure to give a charge on that issue (see, People v. Gilbert, 142 A.D.2d 686).

The defendant's claim that the court failed to instruct the jury that evidence relating to his prior crimes could only be used to evaluate his credibility is also unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to request a limiting instruction relating to evidence of prior crimes, and did not object to the admission of this evidence (People v. Adames, 168 A.D.2d 623; People v. Moon, 121 A.D.2d 790).

We also find that the defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ryan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 18, 1992
180 A.D.2d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Ryan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TIMOTHY RYAN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 18, 1992

Citations

180 A.D.2d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
580 N.Y.S.2d 82

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable…

People v. Owens

t with burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25), to criminal trespass in the second degree (Penal…