Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

People v. Hirsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 20, 2001

280 A.D.2d 612; 720 N.Y.S.2d 535; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1630

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Balaz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Guzman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Guzman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Josey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re Richard M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Rose (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Urquidez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Morgan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Moon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Martin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Snell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Appeal by the *613defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (LaPera, J.), rendered June 4, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence established that a burglar took the victims’ jewelry, cash, and other personal belongings after forcibly entering their house by breaking the glass side door. A fingerprint expert testified that a latent fingerprint lifted from the broken glass matched that of the defendant’s left index finger. Fingerprint evidence, although circumstantial in nature, is sufficient proof if it leads to a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence (see, People v Murray, 168 AD2d 573; People v Sparacino, 150 AD2d 814; People v Talley, 110 AD2d 792). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, we find that the jury reasonably concluded that the defendant’s guilt was proven to a moral certainty (see, People v Betancourt, 68 NY2d 707). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, Acting P. J., Goldstein, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.