People v Macapia (Jose)

[*1] People v Macapia (Jose) 2013 NY Slip Op 50819(U) Decided on May 21, 2013 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 21, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Hunter Jr., JJ
570730/11.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, - -

against

Jose Macapia, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered June 16, 2011, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered June 16, 2011, affirmed.

Defendant's legal sufficiency argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The knowledge element of attempted criminal possession of stolen property was satisfied by evidence that defendant was in exclusive possession of the complainant's personal cellphone soon after it was discovered missing and was willing to return it only if compensated. A "defendant's knowledge that property is stolen may be proved circumstantially, and the unexplained or falsely explained recent exclusive possession of the fruits of a crime allow a [factfinder] to draw a permissible inference that defendant knew the property was stolen" (People v Chandler, 104 AD3d 618, 619 [2013], quoting People v Landfair, 191 AD2d 825, 826 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 1015 [1993]; see also People v Galbo, 218 NY 283, 290 [1916]). We have considered and rejected defendant's jurisdictional point.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 21, 2013