| People v Christopher |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05887 [64 AD3d 1006] |
| July 16, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Steven R. Christopher, Appellant. |
—[*1] P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany, for respondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.),rendered September 9, 2008, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of grand larcenyin the third degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (sevencounts).
Based upon allegations that he had negotiated checks totaling approximately $43,000 drawnon the victim's credit card account by forging the victim's name, defendant was charged with onecount of grand larceny in the third degree and seven counts of criminal possession of a forgedinstrument in the second degree. At the jury trial, the victim testified that he had not authorizeddefendant's use of the checks. Defendant admitted negotiating the checks, but testified that thevictim had authorized him to do so as a means of providing support for the victim's two childrenwith his ex-wife, who later became defendant's girlfriend and resided with defendant when thechecks were negotiated. The jury rejected defendant's explanation and convicted him of allcounts. County Court then sentenced him to concurrent terms of 2
Defendant now appeals, contending that the jury's verdict was against the weight of theevidence because his testimony was more credible than the victim's. We are not persuaded.Given defendant's admission that he negotiated the checks by signing the victim's name, the soleissue for the jury was whether he had been authorized to do so. Defendant testified that the [*2]victim had given him permission as a means of conveying the fundsto the victim's ex-wife to assist her with the expenses of raising the victim's children. There was,however, other evidence that much of the money obtained through the checks was not passedalong to the victim's ex-wife or used for his children's benefit, and the victim denied everauthorizing defendant to draw checks on his account. In addition, defendant admitted that hewithdrew some of the money for his own personal use after he had deposited it in the ex-wife'saccount. Although the victim's credibility was also challenged, the jury was free to accept it overthat of defendant (see People v Bombard, 270 AD2d 648, 648-649 [2000]). Accordingly,after deferring to the jury's assessment of the credibility of the victim and defendant, weconclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the credible evidence (see People v Allah, 57 AD3d1115, 1116 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 780 [2009]; People v Gilliam, 36 AD3d 1151,1152-1153 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 946 [2007]).
Nor do we find merit in defendant's further arguments that the sentence improperly penalizedhim for exercising his right to a jury trial and that there are extraordinary circumstanceswarranting its reduction.
Peters, J.P., Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.