Opinion
55 KA 18-00300
02-05-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lemorris DEXTER, Defendant-appellant.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (SARA A. GOLDFARB OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (DARIENN P. BALIN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (SARA A. GOLDFARB OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (DARIENN P. BALIN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree ( Penal Law § 170.25 ) and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (§ 175.35 [1]). We affirm. Viewing the evidence independently and in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ; People v. Beckwith , 182 A.D.3d 995, 995, 120 N.Y.S.3d 905 [4th Dept. 2020] ), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence on the knowledge element of each crime (see People v. Rice , 105 A.D.3d 1443, 1444, 963 N.Y.S.2d 501 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1076, 974 N.Y.S.2d 325, 997 N.E.2d 150 [2013] ; People v. Moore , 41 A.D.3d 1202, 1203-1204, 837 N.Y.S.2d 484 [4th Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 879, 842 N.Y.S.2d 791, 874 N.E.2d 758 [2007] ; see generally People v. Silberzweig , 58 A.D.3d 762, 762-763, 871 N.Y.S.2d 690 [2d Dept. 2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 920, 884 N.Y.S.2d 701, 912 N.E.2d 1082 [2009] ). Notably, defendant does not challenge the jury's determination that the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he filed a forged and false deed with intent to defraud (see generally Penal Law §§ 170.25, 175.35 [1] ; People v. Dallas , 46 A.D.3d 489, 491, 848 N.Y.S.2d 132 [1st Dept. 2007], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 809, 857 N.Y.S.2d 43, 886 N.E.2d 808 [2008], reconsideration denied 10 N.Y.3d 933, 862 N.Y.S.2d 340, 892 N.E.2d 406 [2008] ). We further note that the People's brief incorrectly states that, in conducting our weight of the evidence review, "[t]he jury's determinations should be given great weight ... and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" (see People v. Gant , 189 A.D.3d 2160, 2161, 134 N.Y.S.3d 901 [4th Dept. 2020], citing People v. Sanchez , 32 N.Y.3d 1021, 1022-1023, 87 N.Y.S.3d 135, 112 N.E.3d 312 [2018] ). The proper standard for conducting weight of the evidence review is set forth in ( People v. Delamota, 18 N.Y.3d 107, 116-117, 936 N.Y.S.2d 614, 960 N.E.2d 383 [2011] ) and ( Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d at 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ).