Opinion
04-13-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Gomatee RAMSUNDAR, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Robert Masters, John M. Castellano, and Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Robert 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 her of grand larceny in the second degree (eight counts), grand larceny in the third degree (six counts), money laundering in the second degree (two counts), money laundering in the third degree (two counts), criminal impersonation in the first degree (fifteen counts), and scheme to defraud in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting her convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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 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 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 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., HALL, MALTESE and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.