Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Shipp 79 Misc. 2d 68

← Cases

People v. Shipp

79 Misc. 2d 68 Court Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, Decision date 1973-12-14 English

Contents

Majority

p. 68
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Australia Shipp, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
December 14, 1973.
James J. McDonough (Matthew Murashin and Eugene Murphy of counsel), for appellant. William Gahn, District Attorney (Herbert H. Esriclc of counsel), for respondent.

Memorandum. Judgment of conviction affirmed.

■Since the owner of the stolen vehicle involved herein, on the day after defendant’s arrest, executed a supporting deposition (attached to the information) wherein he swore that he had not given defendant permission to operate his vehicle, it is unnecessary for us to determine whether a certified copy of a Police Department teletyped report of stolen vehicles, standing alone, was sufficient under ¡CPL 100.40 and 100.15 (subd. 3) as non-hearsay evidence of a lack of the owner’s consent. However, we note that, in our opinion, while the teletyped report is a record made in the regular course of the department’s business and may be admissible as proof that a vehicle was reported stolen, it does not provide proof that the owner did not give consent to this defendant (cf. People v. Fields, People v. Shipp [defendant herein] and People v. Hudson, 74 Misc 2d 109 ).

Coheur — Hogan, P, J., Olickman and McCullough, JJ.

Cases cited