New York Court of Appeals, 2003

People v. Hart

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 10, 2003 · Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read Concur

795 N.E.2d 31; 100 N.Y.2d 550; 763 N.Y.S.2d 806; 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 1412 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Chmielewski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
People v. Chmielewski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
People v. Melendez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
People v. Chatt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Casey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Vandermuelen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Avino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Montgomery (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The Appellate Division properly determined that, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence at the first trial was legally insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant made a false material statement about a past or presently existing fact and, thus, defendant could not be convicted of grand larceny by false pretenses (see Penal Law § 155.05 [2] [a]; see generally People v Norman, 85 NY2d 609, 619 [1995]).

The People do not challenge the Appellate Division’s ability to review the sufficiency of evidence presented at the first trial on appeal from the conviction after the second trial. Therefore, this issue is not before this Court on this appeal.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

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