PEOPLE, res, v. KENNETH MORENO, def-ap

8457-8458. PEOPLE, res, v. KENNETH MORENO, def-ap — PEOPLE, res, v. FRANKLIN MATA, def-ap —Law Offices of Tacopina Seigel & Turano, P.C., New York (Joseph Tacopina of counsel), for Kenneth Moreno, ap — Mandery & Mandery, Mineola (Edward J. Mandery of counsel), for Franklin Mata, ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Christopher P. Marinelli of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered August 10, 2011, convicting defendant Kenneth Moreno, after a jury trial, of three counts of official misconduct, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 year, and judgment, same court and Justice, rendered August 8, 2011, convicting defendant Franklin Mata, after a jury trial, of three counts of official misconduct, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 60 days, with 3 years' probation, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5) as to both defendants.We find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence.We further find that it was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]).

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8457-8458. PEOPLE, res, v. KENNETH MORENO, def-ap — PEOPLE, res, v. FRANKLIN MATA, def-ap —Law Offices of Tacopina Seigel & Turano, P.C., New York (Joseph Tacopina of counsel), for Kenneth Moreno, ap — Mandery & Mandery, Mineola (Edward J. Mandery of counsel), for Franklin Mata, ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Christopher P. Marinelli of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered August 10, 2011, convicting defendant Kenneth Moreno, after a jury trial, of three counts of official misconduct, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 year, and judgment, same court and Justice, rendered August 8, 2011, convicting defendant Franklin Mata, after a jury trial, of three counts of official misconduct, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 60 days, with 3 years’ probation, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5) as to both defendants.We find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence.We further find that it was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]).

To establish the crime of official misconduct, the People had to prove that each defendant committed an act “relating to his office” that constituted an “unauthorized exercise of his official functions,” that he knew the act was unauthorized, and that he acted with the intent to obtain a benefit (Penal Law §195.00[1]). An action taken by a public servant that is “completely unrelated to his [or her] position” is not “within the scope of [his or her] real or apparent authority” (People v. Rossi, 69 AD2d 778, 779 [1st Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 813 [1980]).

PEOPLE, res, v. KENNETH MORENO, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal