Opinion
No. 2003-07954.
November 28, 2006.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), rendered August 18, 2003, convicting him of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree and falsifying business records in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Before: Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Santucci and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his conviction of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. To the extent that his contention is based on the assertions that the false MV-50 form was not a "written instrument" under Penal Law § 175.00 (3) and § 175.35 or that the People adduced insufficient proof to demonstrate that he filed the MV-50 form with the state, it is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 520), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt.
In addition, the defendant contends that his conviction for falsifying business records in the first degree was not supported by legally sufficient evidence because the false MV-50 form did not constitute a "business record" under Penal Law §§ 175.10 and 175.00 (2). The defendant, however, failed to preserve this contention for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Cooper, 86 NY2d 10). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, supra), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of falsifying business records in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on both counts was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83).