Opinion
October 13, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.).
Defendant was the trusted personal secretary of the victim. From 1981 until 1989, as a result of the victim's increasing loss of sight, defendant assumed increasing responsibility for his financial affairs. The People's evidence established that during this period of time, defendant would often "split-deposit" the victim's pay check, withholding a portion in cash without his authorization and forging his signature on other checks, which she cashed for her own benefit. An audit of the victim's finances in 1989 revealed defendant's defalcations to be in excess of $700,000.
Defendant failed to timely move (CPL 255.20) to dismiss the indictment on the basis of purported duplicity (CPL 200.30, 210.20 Crim. Proc.). Nor did defendant move to dismiss upon a showing of due diligence prior to end of trial (CPL 255.20), or request an extension of time (see, People v Dean, 74 N.Y.2d 643, 644). Such being the case, defendant's claims are unpreserved (see, People v Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 600; People v Griffin, 114 A.D.2d 756, 757), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to do so we would find the claims to be without merit.
We would note that the evidence establishing that defendant's mother received public assistance, was properly admitted to refute an affirmative fact placed in issue by defendant (People v Cade, 73 N.Y.2d 904; compare, Badr v Hogan, 75 N.Y.2d 629), that defendant's unexplained cash resulted from her mother's wealth.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.