People v Meiyu Cui

[*1] People v Meiyu Cui 2016 NY Slip Op 50943(U) Decided on June 20, 2016 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 20, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Lowe, III, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570619/11

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Meiyu Cui, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered June 23, 2011, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted petit larceny, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (James M. Burke, J.), rendered June 23, 2011, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of attempted petit larceny was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The credible evidence showed that defendant, while shopping at a Century 21 department store, removed the "65% off" orange price tag stickers from items that were on sale and placed these stickers on the price tags of items not on sale, and then brought these latter items to a cashier, who scanned the altered price tags and charged defendant a discounted price that the store had not authorized.

Defendant's claim that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the price tags and the testimony of a department store security guard regarding his observations regarding the price tags is without merit (see People v Giordano, 50 AD3d 467, 468 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 959 [2008]). The price tags were not hearsay, but rather "constituted circumstantial evidence of the price a shopper would have been expected to pay for the [merchandise]" and "thus were essentially verbal acts by the store, stating an offer to sell at a particular price" (People v Giordano, 50 AD3d at 468).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 20, 2016