Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Bailey

Supreme Court of New York, First Department

June 28, 2013

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Lorell BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant. No. 570621/11.

Editorial Note:

This decision has been referenced in a table in the New York Supplement.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered July 15, 2011, convicting her, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Present: HUNTER, JR., J.P., TORRES, SHULMAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of conviction (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered July 15, 2011, affirmed.

We find unavailing defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument charging her with petit larceny (see Penal Law § 155.25) and fifth-degree criminal possession of stolen property (Penal Law § 165.40). The information— comprising the misdemeanor complaint and a store security employee's supporting deposition— alleged, inter alia, that defendant removed six pairs of earrings from a display, " conceal[ed]" them inside her jacket sleeve, and " walk[ed] past more than one open register and move[d] to another floor in the store in possession of the property and without paying for it." Given the number and nature of the items allegedly concealed by defendant, the store employee's sworn allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to satisfy the asportation element of petit larceny and the intent elements of both theft-related offenses ( see People v. Gasparik [ People v. Olivo ], 52 N.Y.2d 309, 320, 438 N.Y.S.2d 242, 420 N.E.2d 40, particularly n 8). Where asportation of merchandise is involved, the item(s) " need not be completely removed from the premises as long as there has been some physical movement and an exercise of dominion and control that it inconsistent with the owner's rights" ( People v. Jensen, 86 N.Y.2d 248, 255, 630 N.Y.S.2d 989, 654 N.E.2d 1237 [Titone, J. dissenting] citing Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309, 438 N.Y.S.2d 242, 420 N.E.2d 40), factors which were established prima facie in the information filed herein by the People.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.