56 N.Y.2d 868 | NY | 1982
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
With respect to his conviction for attempt to commit robbery, defendant contends that inasmuch as he was charged with attempting to steal money “from Dennis O’Connor”, the People were required to prove that O’Con-nor was an “owner”, i.e., a “person who has a right to possession * * * superior to that of the taker” (Penal Law, § 155.00, subd 5). The jury was charged in the language of the statute, which did not require proof here that O’Connor had an independent right of possession but only that he had a possessory right which, however limited or contingent, was superior to that of defendant. Because the proof was uncontradicted that O’Connor was an employee of the bank it cannot be said that the jury was not warranted in concluding that as such employee he had a right of possession superior to that of defendant, who had no right of possession whatsoever. In this view it is immaterial that the proof was that the bank’s money came from the drawer of two other tellers.
In relation to his conviction for escape (Penal Law, § 205.10, subd 2), defendant urges that it was error for the
Defendant’s final claim in our court that the trial court permitted an excessive volume of testimony with respect to another very similar bank robbery was not preserved for our review.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.