| People v Reeves |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 00568 [124 AD3d 1068] |
| January 22, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rose Reeves, Appellant. |
Michael P. Graven, Owego, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira, for respondent.
Clark, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schuyler County(Argetsinger, J.), rendered January 13, 2011, upon a verdict convicting defendant of thecrimes of grand larceny in the second degree and forgery in the second degree (threecounts).
After defendant stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from the victim, her elderlysister-in-law, she was charged with grand larceny in the second degree. Defendant wasalso charged with three counts of forgery in the second degree as the result of endorsinga check payable to the victim, as well as two documents purportedly signed by the victimthat enabled defendant to access and transfer funds held in a certificate of deposit.Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged. County Court sentenced herto, among other things, five years of probation that included six months of electronichome monitoring. County Court further directed her to pay restitution in the amount of$361,169. Defendant appeals, and we now affirm.
Initially, defendant failed to renew her motion to dismiss the charges at the close ofher proof and, as such, her contention that the verdict is not supported by legallysufficient evidence is unpreserved for our review (see People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Valverde, 122 AD3d1074, 1075 [2014]). We will nevertheless determine whether all the elements of thecharged crimes were proven beyond a reasonable doubt in weighing the probative forceof conflicting testimony and the strength of conflicting inferences to assess whether theverdict is against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007];People v Valverde, 122 AD3d at 1075).
[*2] In that regard, defendant assisted the victim as shedeclined physically in the several years prior to her death and, as such, was named as ajoint owner of the victim's checking account and was granted a limited power of attorneythat did not include any authority over banking transactions. Joseph Fazzary is anattorney and was very familiar with both defendant and the victim, not only because hewas their nephew, but also because he had employed defendant for several years and hadassisted the victim with her financial affairs.[FN*] Fazzary was named as executor of thevictim's estate and, upon her death in 2008, began collecting information about herassets. In so doing, he uncovered documentary evidence that defendant had siphoned offhundreds of thousands of dollars from the victim by various means, includingmisrepresenting the scope of her power of attorney to access certain funds and forgingthe victim's signature on documents designed to make her a joint owner of others (cf. People v Vandermuelen, 42AD3d 667, 668-669 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 965 [2007]). Fazzary andothers testified that this activity was totally inconsistent with the prior behavior of thevictim, who was known to be extremely frugal. Defendant further spent substantial sumsof money, with no obvious source, at a casino during the period in question. Witnessestestified that the victim did not approve of gambling, and that she would not have givendefendant any funds for that purpose.
With regard to the forgery charges, Fazzary was familiar with the handwriting ofboth defendant and the victim, and he testified that defendant had forged the victim'ssignature upon two documents used to make defendant a joint owner of a certificate ofdeposit owned by the victim (see People v Clark, 122 AD2d 389, 390 [1986],lv denied 68 NY2d 913 [1986]). Fazzary also testified that defendant had forgedthe victim's endorsement on a check from the proceeds of another certificate of depositthat had been closed out. Defendant testified that the victim gifted her large sums ofmoney and that her casino winnings had bankrolled her gambling, and otherwise deniedhaving acted improperly, but the jury plainly chose to credit the extensive evidence ofdefendant's financial wrongdoing over her conflicting testimony. Thus, deferring to thecredibility determination of the jury, we cannot say that the verdict was against theweight of the evidence (see People v Antilla, 77 NY2d 853, 854-855 [1991]; People v Rampersaud, 52AD3d 336, 337 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 740 [2008]).
Defendant's remaining arguments are similarly unavailing and require only a briefmention. County Court properly admitted bank records regarding various accounts heldby the victim because the testimony of bank employees "was sufficient to qualify suchdocuments as business records within the meaning of CPLR 4518, and [the witnesses']lack of personal knowledge went to the weight, not the admissibility, of the" records(William Conover, Inc. v Waldorf, 251 AD2d 727, 728 [1998] [citationsomitted]; see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579-580[1986]). County Court further acted appropriately in allowing the jury to considerevidence of uncharged forged checks that was "offered to prove defendant's intent tocommit the specific crimes charged" (People v Bayne, 82 NY2d 673, 676 [1993];see People v Scotti, 232 AD2d 775, 776 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 946[1997]). Defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and found to lackmerit.
Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed.
Footnote *:Fazzary is also theSchuyler County District Attorney and, accordingly, a special prosecutor was appointedto handle the present case (see County Law § 701).