Opinion
05-10-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Humphrey UDEH, appellant.
O'Keke & Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Patrick Ike O'Keke of counsel), for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Nikki Kowalski and Lisa Ellen Fleischmann of counsel), for respondent.
O'Keke & Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Patrick Ike O'Keke of counsel), for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Nikki Kowalski and Lisa Ellen Fleischmann of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingram, J.), rendered July 20, 2015, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree, scheme to defraud in the first degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and health care fraud in the second degree, 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 his conviction of grand larceny in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ). In any event, viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of the crimes of grand larceny in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree 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, 349, 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 as to the counts of grand larceny in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 646, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
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.