The court properly exercised its discretion in its Molineux ( People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264) rulings. All of the evidence at issue was relevant to defendant's motive and intent, as well as tending to dispel the notion that there was an innocent explanation for his conduct, and the potential for prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of this evidence ( see e.g. People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v. Marrin, 205 N.Y. 275; People v. Torres, 237 A.D.2d 650). Moreover, any prejudice was minimized by the court's appropriate limiting instructions. The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence.
We acknowledge that there are considerations which support more lenient sentences herein, such as the valuable services provided by defendants to the community as evidenced by the numerous letters written on their behalf, defendants' expressions of remorse for their actions and the recommendations contained in the presentence reports. Nevertheless, inasmuch as County Court considered appropriate factors in imposing sentence, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion nor do we find that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a reduction (see generally, People v. Hearn, 248 A.D.2d 889; see, People v. Torres, 237 A.D.2d 650, 652; People v. Scotti, 232 A.D.2d 775, 777, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 946). Therefore, the judgments of conviction will not be disturbed.
Notably, defendant's testimony that he prepared three-dimensional casts for some of his Medicaid patients was uncontroverted and, absent definitive proof that such casts were not made for the 10 patients identified in the indictment, the convictions stemming therefrom cannot be said to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant's remaining contentions, including his challenge to the propriety of the sentence imposed on the larceny conviction, are unconvincing ( see, e.g., People v. Torres, 237 A.D.2d 650, 651-652). Crew III, J.P., White, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.