Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

People v. Singleton

People v. Singleton
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 1, 2002
291 A.D.2d 869; 737 N.Y.S.2d 728; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1089
People v. Singleton

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

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 from a judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County (Tills, J.), entered March 26, 1999, convicting defendant after a nonjury trial of, inter alia, criminal mischief in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a bench trial of criminal trespass in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.15), criminal mischief in the second *870degree (Penal Law § 145.10) and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). Defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent terms of incarceration, the greatest of which is 3V2 to 7 years. Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of criminal mischief because the People failed to establish that the victim sustained damages in excess of $1,500. We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in admitting receipts and an insurance check payable to the victim in evidence in the absence of a proper foundation for those business records (see, People v Michallow, 201 AD2d 915, 916-917, lv denied 83 NY2d 874). We conclude, however, that the error is harmless. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the testimony of the victim established that the cost of repairing her property exceeded $1,500 (see, People v Brown, 177 AD2d 942, lv denied 79 NY2d 944; see also, People v Woodard, 148 AD2d 997, 997-998, lv denied 74 NY2d 749; cf., People v Hoppe, 184 AD2d 582). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present — Pine, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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