THE PEOPLE &C., APPELLANT, v. RICARDO LOPEZ, RESPONDENT.
79 N.Y.2d 402, 592 N.E.2d 1360, 583 N.Y.S.2d 356 (1992).
May 5, 1992
2 No. 81
Decided May 5, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Andrew Zwerling, for Appellant.
Laura R. Johnson, for Respondent.
YESAWICH, J.:
The issue presented is whether an affidavit, submitted to a Grand Jury
pursuant to CPL 190.30(3), wherein the owner states in conclusory
terms the worth of allegedly stolen property and the amount of
physical damage to it, without indicating the basis for that
valuation, can sustain an indictment where value is an element of the
offense charged. We hold that it does not.
A Queens County Grand Jury indicted defendant for offenses arising out
of his August 8, 1990 arrest while in possession of a stolen 1985
Pontiac owned by Pedro Medina. The car had a broken right rear vent
window, trunk lock, luggage rack and steering column. Defendant was
charged with three felonies: grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal
Law § 155.30 (8) (stealing a motor vehicle having a value exceeding
$100), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree
(Penal Law § 165.45 (5) (possession of a stolen motor vehicle valued
in excess of $100)), and criminal mischief in the third degree (Penal
Law § 145.05 (damaging property of another in an amount exceeding
$250)), and a class A misdemeanor, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle
in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.05 (1)).
The indictment was based on a form affidavit, attested to by the
victim Medina, which recited that he was the owner of the vehicle,
that defendant did not have his consent to use it, that the amount of
damage to the window and steering column exceeded $250, and that the
value of the vehicle was over $2,500. Supreme Court found that the
affidavit, the only purported proof of value adduced by the
prosecutor, was insufficient to establish valuation because it did not
explain the basis for Medina's opinion respecting the value of the car
or the monetary damages inflicted and granted defendant's motion to
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The issue presented is whether an affidavit, submitted to a Grand Jury pursuant to CPL
A Queens County Grand Jury indicted defendant for offenses arising out of his August 8, 1990
Defendant was charged with three felonies: grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law §
The Appellate Division affirmed, and a Judge of this Court granted the People permission to
The People maintain that both the plain language of CPL 190.30and the intent leading to its
Although we have not heretofore squarely confronted this question (see, e.g., People v James,
People v Selassie, 166 AD2d 358, lv denied 77 NY2d 911;
By permitting evidence of value in this form to be introduced at Grand Jury proceedings, the
Nor does the Legislature's amendment of CPL 190.30 in 1976, a year after its enactment, by
Lastly, our affirmance of the Appellate Division's determination does not, as the People
|
