Opinion
2013-10-15
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael KRAMER, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jody Ratner of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Emily L. Auletta of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jody Ratner of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Emily L. Auletta of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obus, J. at motion to quash; Juan M. Merchan, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered December 15, 2010, convicting defendant of grand larceny in the third degree and two counts of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree and sentencing him to an aggregate term of six months, concurrent with five years' probation, and ordering him to pay $3600 in restitution, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's argument that his conviction of larceny by false promise was not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved ( see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The evidence amply supported the inference that when defendant took the victim's money in return for permitting her to occupy his apartment, he had no intention of fulfilling that promise ( seePenal Law § 155.05[2] [d] ).
The court properly exercised its discretion in granting a motion to quash defendant's subpoena duces tecum for documents related to his past complaints to the Internal Affairs Bureau of the Police Department. The documents sought were not “relevant and material to facts at issue” in this case (Matter of Terry D., 81 N.Y.2d 1042, 1044, 601 N.Y.S.2d 452, 619 N.E.2d 389 [1993];see also People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 551, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d 924 [1979] ).The motion court properly rejected defendant's far-fetched claims of relevance.