| People v Dees |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08471 [45 AD3d 602] |
| November 7, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v SonjaDees, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Steven A. Hovani and Michael J.Miller of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.),rendered August 23, 2004, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly allowed the People tocross-examine her with respect to her prior conviction for a felony, as she opened the door bygiving misleading testimony about the circumstances of that conviction (see People v Sims,245 AD2d 316, 317 [1997]).
The defendant's contention that the trial court gave an unbalanced interested witness charge,by failing to charge that the People's witnesses were interested witnesses while charging that thedefendant was an interested witness as a matter of law, is unpreserved for appellate review, as thedefendant did not object to the court's charge (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Jean-Baptiste, 37 AD3d852, 853 [2007]). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, as the courtinstructed the jury that the defendant was an interested witness, and that it was free to find thatany witnesses, including the prosecution's witnesses, were interested witnesses (see People v Lopez, 1 AD3d 458,459 [2003]; People v McCray, 204 AD2d 490, 491 [1994]).[*2]
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of theevidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray,86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), and giving the prosecutionevery reasonable infeence to be drawn therefrom (see People v Lewis, 64 NY2d 1111,1112 [1985]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond areasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence(see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Crane, J.P., Spolzino, Krausman and McCarthy, JJ., concur.