New York Court of Appeals, 1969

People v. Alicea

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 3, 1969

25 N.Y.2d 685; 254 N.E.2d 915; 306 N.Y.S.2d 686; 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 948

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Houghtaling (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Jackman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Vandenburg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. Medjdoubi (New York Supreme Court 1997)
People v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Bazo (New York Supreme Court 1988)
People v. Delaney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
In re David (NYC Family Court 1987)
Buck v. Allied Chemical Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
People v. Shelley (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
People v. Gross (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)

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

Memorandum. The judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered. The value of the stolen article under the applicable statute (former Penal Law, § 1305; see new *687Penal Law, § 155.20, suM. 1) is “ the price at which * * * [it] would probably have been sold in the regular course of business at the time when and the place where * * * [it was] stolen ” (People v. Irrizari, 5 N Y 2d 142, 146). The insurance payment, indefinite in amount, which complainant received for his automobile was insufficient to prove that such value at the time of the theft was at least $500. Without complainant’s insurance policy or equivalent evidence available in the record, it was impossible to tell what portion of the insurance payment reflected car value, rather than compensation for car rental fees or other expenses, if any, for an undetermined period.

The 1967 National Market Beports’ “ Redbook ”, listing average wholesale values for used cars of specified make, model, and year, is not a fit subject for judicial notice, inasmuch as the values recorded are neither notorious nor incontestable (see 9 Wigmore, Evidence [3d ed.], § 2571, pp. 547-548; McCormick, Evidence, § 325, pp. 691-694; Richardson, Evidence [Prince, 9th ed.], §§ 9, 41). Moreover, proof of an average value only slightly above the statutory level, in the absence of evidence of the condition of the particular vehicle, was, in any event, inadequate to sustain a conviction (see People v. Harold, 22 N Y 2d 443; cf. People v. Carter, 19 N Y 2d 967). Given a proper foundation, however, such reports may be admissible at the trial as supportive, and in some cases sufficient evidence of value (see, e.g., Whelan v. Lynch, 60 N. Y. 469, 474-475; Watts v. Phillips-Jones Corp., 211 App. Div. 523, 529-531, affd. 242 N. Y. 557 ; 6 Wigmore, Evidence [3d ed.], supra, § 1704; Richardson, Evidence [Price, 9th ed.], supra, § 370).

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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