Opinion
2013-02-6
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Stephen SUKHDEO, appellant.
Randall D. Unger, Bayside, N.Y., for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Rebecca Height of counsel), for respondent.
Randall D. Unger, Bayside, N.Y., for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Rebecca Height of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Camacho, J.), rendered March 3, 2010, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of grand larceny in the second degree is only partially preserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Persaud, 98 A.D.3d 527, 528, 949 N.Y.S.2d 431). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( 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 prove the defendant's guilt of grand larceny in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. Mishkin, 134 A.D.2d 529, 521 N.Y.S.2d 296). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053,cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record herein, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt with respect to grand larceny in the second degree 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's challenge to a portion of the testimony of the victim's sister on hearsay grounds is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Borrero, 79 A.D.3d 767, 768, 912 N.Y.S.2d 634). In any event, the contested testimony was not hearsay, since it was not offered for its truth, but rather “ ‘to provide necessary background information to the jury’ ” ( People v. Bilal, 79 A.D.3d 900, 901, 912 N.Y.S.2d 678, quoting People v. Johnson, 40 A.D.3d 1011, 1012, 837 N.Y.S.2d 222;see People v. Walker, 70 A.D.3d 870, 871, 894 N.Y.S.2d 156).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contention.