People v. Mayo

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 36 N.Y.2d 1002, 374 N.Y.S.2d 609, 337 N.E.2d 124, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2079

Decision Date: 6/19/1975

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Mayo, 36 N.Y.2d 1002, 374 N.Y.S.2d 609, 337 N.E.2d 124, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2079 (1975)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1975

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 89 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.44

N.Y. Sup. Ct.16

N.Y.8

N.Y. Cty. Ct.4

Suffolk Cty. Ct.3

Most recently cited by10

2025People v. Alvarenga-Mendez
2017People v. Castaldo N.Y. App. Div.
2017People v. Simmons Livingston Cty. Ct.
2016People v. Woods N.Y. Crim. Ct.
2014People v. Kilhullen N.Y. Sup. Ct.
2013People v. Hardy Clinton Cty. Ct.
2011People v. Doty Essex Cty. Ct.
2010People of State of New York v. Mack N.Y. App. Div.
2010People v. Waddell N.Y. App. Div.
2009People v. Ridge N.Y. Dist. Ct.

Cites 4 casesshowing 3

People v. Ward
People v. Dunleavy
People v. Sabella

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ann Mayo, Appellant.

Attorneys

Bernard R. Bacharach for appellant.
Carl A. Vergari, District Attorney (James M. Rose and John R. Lacava of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The evidence presented to the Grand Jury, particularly as to the gross discrepancy in the number of toll tickets and the defendant’s behavior when confronted by the police, was legally sufficient to support the indictment. (CPL 210.20; People v Dunleavy, 41 AD2d 717, affd 33 NY2d 573; People v Ward, 37 AD2d 174.) Nor is there any merit to the contention that the mere shortage of tickets does not support an inference that the defendant stole funds equal to the dollar value of the tickets (Penal Law, § 155.20, subd 2, par [b]). In the context of the Grand Jury procedure, legally sufficient means prima facie, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt (cf. People v Fellman, 35 NY2d 158).