Opinion
06-07-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jocelyn ALLRICH, also known as Jo–Jo Allrich, appellant.
Arza R. Feldman, Uniondale, NY (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Nikki Kowalski and Jodi A. Danzig of counsel), for respondent.
Arza R. Feldman, Uniondale, NY (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Nikki Kowalski and Jodi A. Danzig of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered March 21, 2014, convicting her of scheme to defraud in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree (six counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecution established by a preponderance of the evidence that venue was proper in Kings County (see CPL 20.40[1] ; People v. Greenberg, 89 N.Y.2d 553, 555–556, 656 N.Y.S.2d 192, 678 N.E.2d 878 ; People v. Ribowsky, 77 N.Y.2d 284, 291–292, 567 N.Y.S.2d 392, 568 N.E.2d 1197 ).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish her guilt is partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). 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 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, LaSALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.