People v Ray

Annotate this Case
People v Ray 2014 NY Slip Op 01405 Decided on February 27, 2014 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 27, 2014
Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
11853 1432/11

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Geral Ray, Defendant-Appellant.




Cardozo Criminal Appeals Clinic, New York (Stanley
Neustadter of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Yuval
Simchi-Levi of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered October 5, 2011, as amended October 15, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and bail jumping in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

We reject defendant's claim that the verdict convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property was against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. There was ample evidence that defendant knowingly participated in a scheme to use stolen funds from a fraudulent account to purchase and cash money orders, and that he knowingly possessed stolen property valued in excess of $1000.

Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his bail jumping conviction, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the evidence established the elements of the crime (see Penal Law § 215.56).

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

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 27, 2014

DEPUTY CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.