| People v Lawson |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06871 [65 AD3d 1380] |
| September 29, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AltonLawson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Jason R.Richards of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Ruskin, J.),rendered November 16, 2007, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, grandlarceny in the third degree, and scheme to defraud in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of grand larceny in the second degree (see Penal Law § 155.40[1]), grand larceny in the third degree (see Penal Law § 155.35), and scheme todefraud in the first degree (see Penal Law § 190.65 [1] [b]; People v FirstMeridian Planning Corp., 86 NY2d 608, 618 [1995]; People v Nicholas, 44 AD3d1075 [2007]; People v Houghtaling, 14 AD3d 879, 881 [2005]; People v Bastian,294 AD2d 882, 883 [2002]) beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent reviewpursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weightof the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the disqualification of his original attorney did notdeprive him of the right to the counsel of his choice (see People v Kirkorov, 57 AD3d568 [2008]). The County Court properly concluded that continued representation of thedefendant by this attorney would create an actual conflict of interest, as well as a violation of the"advocate-witness" rule (People v Paperno, 54 NY2d 294, 299-300 [1981]; seePeople v Gordon, 272 AD2d 133 [2000]; People v Limongelli, 156 AD2d 473, 474[1989]).
The defendant's contention that the court improperly imposed restitution without conductinga hearing is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to request a hearing orotherwise challenge the amount of restitution imposed at sentencing (see Penal Law§ 60.27 [2]; People v Horne, 97 NY2d 404, 414 n 3 [2002]; People vToomer, 61 AD3d 899 [2009]; People v Passalacqua, 43 AD3d 964 [2007];People v Allen, 305 AD2d 421 [2003]). In any event, the contention is without meritbecause there was sufficient support in the record for the court's determination of the amount ofrestitution (see People v Charles, 309 AD2d 873, 874 [2003]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.