People v. Szurgot

2025 NY Slip Op 03906 · Appellate Division, Fourth Department · June 27, 2025 · No. 406 KA 23-01786

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department reviewed a defendant's convictions for criminal possession of stolen property in the third and fourth degrees and bail jumping in the second degree. The court held that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove the stolen vehicle's value exceeded the $3,000 statutory threshold for the third-degree charge, resulting in the reversal and dismissal of that count. The remaining convictions and sentence were affirmed.

Court
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Writing for the Court
Bannister, J.P.; Montour; Smith; Nowak; Hannah
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
June 27, 2025
Docket number
406 KA 23-01786
Procedural posture
Appeal from Ontario County Court judgment convicting defendant of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, fourth degree, and bail jumping; judgment modified by reversing third‑degree conviction and dismissing that count, the remainder affirmed.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Timothy W. Szurgot v. People of the State of New York
Disposition
reversed

Topics

evidenceappellate procedurestandard of reviewcriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction for criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, which requires the value of the property to exceed $3,000.

Holdings

  1. The conviction was reversed because the evidence was insufficient to establish that the stolen vehicle’s value exceeded $3,000.

Key quotations

A verdict is legally sufficient when, viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the People, there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
A sufficiency inquiry requires a court to marshal competent facts most favorable to the People and determine whether, as a matter of law, a jury could logically conclude that the People sustained its burden of proof.
The jury was not prevented from arriving at an impartial judgment on the merits.

Factual background

The defendant was found guilty of criminal possession of stolen property in the third and fourth degrees and bail jumping. The key issue concerned the value of a stolen 2010 Toyota Prius. The victim testified the vehicle was worth approximately $4,000, while a police officer estimated $6,000‑$10,000. No expert testimony was offered to establish market value.

Procedural history

The defendant was convicted by a jury in the Ontario County Court on three counts. He appealed, asserting preservation errors, speedy‑trial issues, and insufficiency of the evidence supporting the third‑degree possession conviction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…