People v. Ge

2025 NY Slip Op 02732 · Appellate Division, First Department · May 6, 2025 · No. Ind. No. 3433/18; Appeal No. 4269; Case No. 2020-02470

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the defendant's convictions for grand larceny, criminal possession of a forged instrument, and identity theft following a jury trial. The court rejected the defendant's unpreserved claims regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence, declining review in the interest of justice, and alternatively found the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Relying on surveillance footage, witness testimony, and the defendant's own statements, the court concluded that the evidence sufficiently demonstrated his intent to defraud account holders and knowingly possess forged credit cards.

Court
Appellate Division, First Department
Writing for the Court
Webber, J.P.; Scarpulla, J.; Mendez, J.; Rodriguez, J.; Pitt-Burke, J.J.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
May 6, 2025
Docket number
Ind. No. 3433/18; Appeal No. 4269; Case No. 2020-02470
Procedural posture
Appeal from judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County affirming conviction of defendant on grand larceny, criminal possession of a forged instrument, and identity theft.
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
published
Parties
Renping Ge v. People of the State of New York
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureevidenceappellate jurisdictionstandard of review

Practice areas

criminal law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the defendant's legal insufficiency claims challenging the People’s evidence of his state of mind were preserved for appellate review
  2. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence

Holdings

  1. The claims are unpreserved and therefore not subject to appellate review.
  2. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and is affirmed.

Key quotations

The evidence, including surveillance footage depicting defendant's conduct within the store, testimony that defendant never had a store credit account, his use of a forged credit card bearing a fictitious name, testimony from an investigator explaining how a store credit card recovered from defendant was determined to be fraudulent, and defendant's statement to the investigator that he obtained that card from an unavailable Chinese website, demonstrated that defendant knowingly intended to defraud the true account holders by assuming their identities, which he accomplished by using their store credit card account numbers to purchase merchandise (see Penal Law §§ 190.77[1], 190.80; People v. Roberts, 31 NY3d 406, 419 [2018]). (at *1)

Factual background

Defendant Renping Ge used forged store‑credit cards bearing fictitious names to purchase merchandise, obtained the cards from an unavailable Chinese website, and possessed the forged cards knowingly. Surveillance footage showed his conduct inside the store, and investigators testified that the cards were fraudulent. The jury found him guilty of grand larceny, possession of a forged instrument, and identity theft.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, New York County rendered a judgment on February 7, 2020 (amended February 21, 2020) convicting Renping Ge of multiple offenses. The People appealed; the Appellate Division, First Department reviewed and affirmed the judgment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…