Opinion
2017–02714 Ind. No. 43/16
12-30-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Suzanne WHITMAN, appellant.
Carol Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Carol Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), dated January 24, 2017, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the second degree ( Penal Law § 155.40[1] ), for transferring money in excess of the sum of $50,000 for her own personal benefit from two bank accounts belonging to her employer. As part of her sentence, the defendant was required to make restitution to Ulster Savings Bank (hereinafter Ulster) in the amount of $61,189.85, pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27(1).
The defendant's contentions regarding the propriety of the restitution order are unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to object in the County Court to the payment of restitution to Ulster, failed to object to the amount of restitution, and failed to request a restitution hearing (see People v. Horne, 97 N.Y.2d 404, 414 n 3, 740 N.Y.S.2d 675, 767 N.E.2d 132 ; People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 281, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108 ; People v. Isaacs, 71 A.D.3d 1161, 898 N.Y.S.2d 226 ).
In any event, Penal Law § 60.27 does not preclude an order of restitution to a person or entity other than the direct victim of the crime, when that entity has in fact sustained the loss (see People v. Hall–Wilson, 69 N.Y.2d 154, 157–158, 513 N.Y.S.2d 73, 505 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Yong Ho Han, 220 A.D.2d 632, 632 N.Y.S.2d 619 ). A hearing is only mandated under the statute "[i]f the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support [the restitution] finding or upon request by the defendant" ( Penal Law § 60.27[2] ; see People v. Kim, 91 N.Y.2d 407, 410, 671 N.Y.S.2d 420, 694 N.E.2d 421 ), neither of which is the case here.
The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is belied by her acknowledgment at the plea proceeding that she was satisfied with the representation of her attorney (see People v. Haffiz, 77 A.D.3d 767, 768, 909 N.Y.S.2d 490 ). The record demonstrates, moreover, that the defendant received an advantageous plea, and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel (see People v. Wright, 95 A.D.3d 1046, 943 N.Y.S.2d 766 ).
DILLON, J.P., MILLER, HINDS–RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.