| People v Dantata |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07961 [55 AD3d 404] |
| October 21, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v SultanAl Sabah Dantata, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Olivia Sohmer of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered July 13,2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the second and third degrees andscheme to defraud in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to anaggregate term of 11 to 22 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's legal sufficiency argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in theinterest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also find that the verdict was based on legallysufficient evidence. Furthermore, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There was ample evidence of defendant'sguilt, including his own admissions, and there is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinationsconcerning credibility. The evidence established that defendant made misrepresentations to hisvictims as to his status for the purpose of obtaining loans that he never intended to repay, as wellas making other thefts.
Defendant did not preserve his claim that the People failed to lay a satisfactory foundationfor the introduction of physical evidence found in his apartment and identified by the victims asitems he used in misrepresenting his status and identity, and we decline to review it in the interestof justice. As an alternative holding, we find it without merit. Since the victims' testimonysufficiently authenticated these items, there was no need to also establish a chain of custody(see People v Javier, 210 AD2d 118 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 863 [1995]).
Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appealbecause they primarily involve matters outside the record concerning counsel's strategic decisions(see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998[1982]). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant receivedeffective [*2]assistance under the state and federal standards(see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland vWashington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, McGuire,Acosta and Renwick, JJ.