Summary
In Moore, after misdescribing the name of the television set, the defendant could offer no explanation for doing so; though Carrasquillo, too, confused the radio names, implicit in his other answers was a plausible explanation for having done so.
Summary of this case from People v. CarrasquilloOpinion
Argued May 30, 1979
Decided June 26, 1979
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, RICHARD G. DENZER, J.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Mark Dwyer and Robert M. Pitler of counsel), for appellant.
Gerald Zuckerman for respondent.
Order reversed for reasons stated in the dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice SAMUEL J. SILVERMAN at the Appellate Division ( 62 A.D.2d 155, 157-160), and case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for review of the facts (CPL 470.25, subd 2, par [d]; 470.40, subd 2, par [b]).
Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER.