Summary
finding that the victim's statement that the "items stolen from the car were purchased for approximately $1,500 . . . was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the value of the property stolen exceeded the one thousand dollars threshold . . . ."
Summary of this case from Wheeler v. KolekOpinion
March 15, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Frank Blangiardo, J.
Two police officers observed the defendant and another male break into the trunk of the complainant's automobile with a screwdriver. We find that the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant and accordingly affirm the hearing court's determination to deny defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence seized (People v Denti, 44 A.D.2d 44, 47). The complainant testified that the clothing and other items stolen from the car were purchased for approximately $1,500. It was further established that the clothing was in "like-new" condition, having been recently purchased, and only used once or twice. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the value of the property stolen exceeded the $1,000 threshold of Penal Law § 155.30 (1). Under the circumstances presented, the market value of the stolen goods was substantially identical to their replacement value as defined in Penal Law § 155.20 (1). Accordingly, the judgment convicting the defendant of grand larceny in the fourth degree is affirmed.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.