| People v Chance |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02469 [71 AD3d 563] |
| March 25, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Duwayne Chance, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered August 7, 2008,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourthdegree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as asecond felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2½ to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court correctly declined to impose any sanction for alleged noncompliance with theprocedures for disposal of stolen property set forth in Penal Law § 450.10. The recordsupports the court's finding that the victim's wallet was never in police "custody" within themeaning of the statute when, in the victim's presence, the police briefly possessed a wallet foundat the scene of the crime for the purpose of confirming the victim's identity as the owner beforereturning it to her (see People v Faucette, 201 AD2d 252, 253 [1994]; Matter ofMorgenthau v Marks, 177 AD2d 131, 133 [1992]). This is in keeping with the language ofthe statute, stating that it applies when "a request is made for the return of stolen property"(Penal Law § 450.10 [1]). This contemplates a removal of the property from the scene ofthe crime for storage at the Property Clerk's office, or some other assertion of control over theproperty by the police. Nothing in the statute obligates the police to take custody ofanything; instead, it governs the disposition of stolen property after the police have decided tovoucher it, and after someone has asked for a property release. In any event, in light of theevidence presented and issues contested at trial, the return of the wallet to the victim did notcause sufficient prejudice to warrant any sanction.
Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his robbery conviction iswithout merit. The evidence supports the inference that when defendant struggled with securityguards, his intent was not only to escape or defend himself, but also to retain [*2]possession of the stolen wallet (see e.g. People vGonzalez, 60 AD3d 447, 448 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 915 [2009]).Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Moskowitz, Freedman, Richter and RomÁn, JJ.