| People v Miller |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00711 [59 AD3d 463] |
| February 3, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shelley Miller, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Rossof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reichbach,J.), rendered March 7, 2005, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, insofar as it relates to thePeople's alleged failure to prove her larcenous intent, is unpreserved for appellate review, sinceshe failed to raise that specific contention at trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484[2008]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859 [1987]; People v Middleton, 52 AD3d 533 [2008]). In any event, viewingthe evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review ofthe weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the recordhere, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that she was denied a fair trial by certain remarks made by theprosecutor during his opening statement and summation, as well as by the People's introductionof certain documents into evidence, and the elicitation of certain testimony, is unpreserved forappellate review. The defendant failed to object to the introduction of the challenged evidence(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vBeauliere, 36 AD3d 623 [2007]), and she either failed to object to the challengedremarks, made only a general objection, or made an untimely specific objection (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Williams,50 AD3d 710, 711 [2008]; People v Ortiz, 46 AD3d 580, 581 [2007]; People v Morris,148 AD2d 552, 553 [1989]). In any event, to the extent that some of the evidence andremarks may have been improper, such evidence and remarks were harmless, as there wasoverwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that theycontributed to her conviction (seePeople v Lacewell, 44 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]). Angiolillo, J.P., Leventhal, Belen andChambers, JJ., concur.