Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent, v. Louis Riley, Respondent-Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2012-12-18
Citations: 20 N.Y.3d 980
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent, v Louis Riley, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 980–982

Head Matter:
[982 NE2d 614, 958 NYS2d 694]
The People of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent, v Louis Riley, Respondent-Appellant.
Submitted July 16, 2012;
decided December 18, 2012
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Andrew E. Seewald of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Bruce D. Austern of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Motion for reargument granted and, upon reargument, the decision of June 28, 2012 adhered to (see 19 NY3d 944 [2012]). CPL 470.15 (4) (a) and (b) do not eliminate the necessity of preservation in the trial court to challenge legal sufficiency of the evidence on appeal (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20 [1995]). Moreover, contrary to the contention the People press upon re-argument, CPL 470.15 (4) (b) does not alter, for issues of legal sufficiency of the evidence, the well-settled rule that an order reversing or modifying on an unpreserved issue is an exercise of discretion in the interest of justice and not appealable to this Court (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]; see People v Bonilla-Lugo, 85 NY2d 965 [1995], and People v Christian, 85 NY2d 965 [1995] [decided the same day as People v Gray]). The People's appeal in this case was properly dismissed.
Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo and Read.