Opinion
04-13-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Shane RAMSUNDAR, appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Angie Louie and Alan S. Axelrod of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Robert J. Masters, John M. Castellano, and Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Angie Louie and Alan S. Axelrod of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Robert J. Masters, John M. Castellano, and Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Holder, J.), rendered January 11, 2012, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree (eight counts), grand larceny in the third degree (thirteen counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree, money laundering in the second degree (two counts), money laundering in the third degree (two counts), criminal impersonation in the first degree (nineteen counts), and scheme to defraud in the first degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 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 opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe 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 defendant further contends that the Supreme Court denied him the constitutional right to present a defense (see generally Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 ; Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 ) by precluding him from eliciting testimony that would demonstrate the complainants' bias or motive to fabricate. However, the defendant's constitutional claims are unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not assert a constitutional right to introduce the excluded evidence at trial (see People v. Simmons, 106 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 965 N.Y.S.2d 618 ). In any event, the court's rulings were a provident exercise of discretion, as the defendant failed to offer a good-faith basis for the proposed line of inquiry (see People v. Hicks, 88 A.D.3d 817, 818–819, 930 N.Y.S.2d 658 ; People v. Garcia, 47 A.D.3d 830, 831, 849 N.Y.S.2d 637 ; People v. Mestres, 41 A.D.3d 618, 838 N.Y.S.2d 164 ; People v. Walsh, 35 A.D.3d 637, 829 N.Y.S.2d 119 ).
The testimony of the People's witness who summarized certain voluminous records was properly admitted (see People v. Haque, 70 A.D.3d 967, 968, 897 N.Y.S.2d 130 ; People v. Potter, 255 A.D.2d 763, 682 N.Y.S.2d 238 ; People v. Weinberg, 183 A.D.2d 932, 586 N.Y.S.2d 132 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ), and the amount of restitution was not excessive (see People v. Stubbs, 281 A.D.2d 498, 499, 721 N.Y.S.2d 562 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., HALL, MALTESE and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.