Opinion
2011-1943 K CR
11-26-2014
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Timika Butler, Appellant.
PRESENT: , ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kevin B. McGrath, Jr., J.), rendered May 18, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted petit larceny and attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of attempted petit larceny (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 155.25) and attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 165.40).
On appeal, defendant contends that the Criminal Court erred in denying her motion, made during the course of the trial, to dismiss the information on the ground that it was based on latent hearsay or, in the alternative, to conduct a hearing to determine whether the complainant had understood the contents of the complaint before signing the supporting deposition, in light of the fact that the complainant had testified at trial with the aid of an interpreter. However, even though no certificate of translation was attached to the supporting deposition, the Criminal Court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss, as informations are reviewed for facial sufficiency solely within their four corners (see People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 366 [2000]; Matter of Edward B., 80 NY2d 458, 463-465 [1992]; People v Antonovsky, 41 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).
While defendant had sought a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People's case, arguing that the People had failed to disprove her claim-of-right defense beyond a reasonable doubt, she failed to renew the motion after presenting evidence relevant to that defense, and therefore waived subsequent review of that determination (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]). In any event, we are of the opinion that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of attempted petit larceny and attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.
Furthermore, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor, and assess their credibility (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Here, defendant testified that she had brought back to the complainant's store a hair piece that she had previously purchased in order to exchange it; that she had been told that she could not exchange the item; and that she had walked out of the store with a different hair piece than that for which she had paid. Thus, even under defendant's version of the events, she is guilty of attempted petit larceny and attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 26, 2014