From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Katharu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 18, 2004
7 A.D.3d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3676.

Decided May 18, 2004.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obus, J.), rendered July 19, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1½ to 4½ years and a $5,000 fine, unanimously affirmed.

Irving Cohen, New York, for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Patrick J. Hynes of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin, Williams, JJ.


The court, which had denied defendant's pretrial application for a hearing to challenge the veracity of the affiant's statements in support of a search warrant ( see Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154; People v. Alfinito, 16 N.Y.2d 181), properly denied his renewed requests for such a hearing made during trial. To the extent that any of the trial evidence could be viewed as contradicting the warrant application, these discrepancies were, at most, trivial and they did not suggest that the affiant made statements that were intentionally or recklessly false ( see People v. Cohen, 90 N.Y.2d 632, 637). Furthermore, we conclude that the warrant was sufficiently narrow in scope ( see People v. Darling, 95 N.Y.2d 530, 537).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility. There was abundant evidence from which the jury could readily infer facts satisfying all elements of both counts ( see People v. Lewis, 125 A.D.2d 918, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 882). This evidence included detailed testimony as to how the scheme to steal merchandise from a department store and transfer the stolen goods to defendant for resale in his own store was carried out with defendant's full involvement.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Katharu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 18, 2004
7 A.D.3d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Katharu

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAJU KATHARU, ETC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 18, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
776 N.Y.S.2d 476

Citing Cases

Katharu v. New York State Division of Parole

On May 18, 2004, the Appellate Division affirmed petitioner's conviction and sentence in their entireties.…

People v. Rhodes

The County Court properly denied, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to controvert the search warrant…