| People v Solock |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02910 [50 AD3d 1166] |
| April 3, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Laura A.Solock, Appellant. |
—[*1] Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Susan Rider-Ulacco of counsel), forrespondent.
Carpinello, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden,J.), rendered May 26, 2006, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of grandlarceny in the second degree.
Defendant was charged in a two-count indictment with grand larceny in the second degreeand falsifying business records in the first degree stemming from evidence that, during the courseof her employment with a family business, she stole upwards of $125,000 over a three-yearperiod. Under the terms of a plea agreement, she was to plead guilty to the grand larceny count insatisfaction of the indictment, receive a sentence of 2 to 6 years in prison and pay restitution.Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to this crime and was sentenced in accordance with the pleaagreement. She now appeals.
We are unpersuaded by the sole contention now before us, namely, that defendant'sagreed-upon sentence is harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice.Defendant committed a crime of greed involving the theft of over $125,000 from a familybusiness which entrusted its assets and finances to her. As aptly observed by County Court atsentencing, "[t]he enormity of this theft speaks volumes." Moreover, when approached by policeconcerning her conduct, she was not completely forthright about the magnitude of her theft andfurther attempted to shift blame to her employer for her conduct because she was not paid thatwell. In view of these facts, as well as the fact that defendant was sentenced in accordance with[*2]the plea agreement and the sentence was far less than themaximum permitted, we find no abuse of discretion by County Court in its sentence (see e.g. People v Provost, 25 AD3d1016, 1017 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 817 [2006]; People v Shea, 254 AD2d512, 513 [1998]). Moreover, while we acknowledge defendant's lack of criminal history, we donot find that this factor, or any other factor urged by her, presents extraordinary circumstanceswarranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Provost,supra).
Peters, J.P., Kane, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.