Opinion
May 23, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the verdicts of guilt for offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree and perjury in the first degree (two counts) (see, Penal Law § 175.00, 175.35 Penal, 210.15 Penal; Domestic Relations Law § 115 Dom. Rel. [7]; People v Stanard, 42 N.Y.2d 74, cert denied 434 U.S. 986).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the imposed sentence of three concurrent terms of six months' imprisonment to run concurrently with three terms of probation of five years was not unduly harsh or excessive under the circumstances of this case.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v Knapp, 57 N.Y.2d 161, cert denied 462 U.S. 1106, appeal after remand 113 A.D.2d 154, cert denied 479 U.S. 844; People v Bayer, 133 A.D.2d 374). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.