SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
December 1, 2009
THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT,
IRENE DIGENARO, APPELLANT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), rendered June 20, 2007, convicting her of grand larceny in the third degree (two counts) and scheme to defraud in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentencing.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, RUTH C. BALKIN and JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.
(Ind. No. 1389/06)
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620; People v Lawson, 65 AD3d 1380), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410, cert denied 542 US 946; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633; People v Ramirez, 65 AD3d 1168).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see CPL 470.15[c], [b]; CPL 470.20; People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513, 519; People v Taylor, 65 AD3d 1169; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
There is no merit to the defendant's remaining contention, raised in point two of her brief, alleging that certain evidence was improperly admitted at trial.
DILLON, J.P., FLORIO, BALKIN and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.