§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Sergey Aleynikov, Appellant.

Brief

24 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Jennings

    69 N.Y.2d 103 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 763 times
    In Jennings, the president of the insured (Sentry) received a check from Sentry's insurer to cover payments owed to the Sentry's clients as a result of losses incurred when the Sentry's warehouse was robbed.

  2. Thyroff v. Nationwide

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2442 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 190 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that computer files could be the subject of a conversion claim, where plaintiff was entirely denied use of those files

  3. United States v. Aleynikov

    676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012)   Cited 99 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Reversing EEA and NSPA convictions on grounds of legal insufficiency

  4. United States v. Agrawal

    726 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2013)   Cited 87 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding omission of element harmless where proved by overwhelming evidence

  5. People v. Kent

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 3572 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 43 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law" and "regardless of a defendant's awareness of his computer's cache function, the files stored in the cache may constitute evidence of images that were previously viewed; to possess those images, however, the defendant's conduct must exceed mere viewing to encompass more affirmative acts of control such as printing, downloading or saving"

  6. People v. Litto

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 5582 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 48 times
    Noting that "a prosecutor must show impairment by alcohol to prove a violation of subdivision 1 — resulting in a traffic infraction," and that "[s]ubdivision 1 is a lesser-included offense of subdivisions 2 and 3"

  7. Knight-Ridder v. Greenberg

    70 N.Y.2d 151 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 81 times
    In Green (27 Cal 3d at 59-62, 609 P2d at 504-506), the Supreme Court of California addressed a question similar to the one before us. Green is pertinent because the California capital punishment statute does not require that the murder be "in furtherance of" the felony.

  8. Almeida v. Holder

    588 F.3d 778 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that second-degree larceny under Connecticut law is categorically a "theft offense" aggravated felony under the INA

  9. America Online, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.

    207 F. Supp. 2d 459 (E.D. Va. 2002)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that electronic data is intangible and not physical in nature

  10. People v. Zinke

    76 N.Y.2d 8 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 51 times
    In Zinke, the court reasoned that general partners are alter egos of one another and that all members of a general partnership are joint owners of partnership property.

  11. Section 101 - Definitions

    17 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 6,329 times   174 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the United States' adherence to provisions of the Berne Convention of 1886

  12. Section 2314 - Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys, fraudulent State tax stamps, or articles used in counterfeiting

    18 U.S.C. § 2314   Cited 3,063 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Criminalizing the transportation, transmission, or transfer of goods "in interstate or foreign commerce"

  13. Section 53a-119 - Larceny defined

    Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-119   Cited 100 times
    Defining embezzlement as occurring when one "wrongfully appropriates to himself or to another property of another in his care or custody"