| People v Benard |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00697 [69 AD3d 952] |
| January 26, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Tricia Benard, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Ann Bordley ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers,J.), rendered February 22, 2007, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree, criminalpossession of a forged instrument in the second degree (three counts), falsifying business recordsin the first degree, and scheme to defraud in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008];People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]). In any event, viewing the evidence in thelight most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), wefind that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that theverdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633 [2006]).
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment onCPL 30.30 grounds. One day after her arraignment on a felony complaint, the defendant, throughher attorney, executed a written waiver of her CPL 30.30 rights. As the defendant never revokedthis waiver, only one day was chargeable to the People (see People v Waldron, 6 NY3d463, 467 [2006]; People v Newman, 37 AD3d 621 [2007]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to respond meaningfully to threenotes from the jury regarding the counts charging criminal possession of a forged instrument inthe second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vStarling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; People v Romgobind, 40 AD3d 1133 [2007];People v Clark, 298 AD2d 461 [2002]). In any event, the Supreme Court's responses tothe notes, which were discussed with counsel before they were rendered, were meaningful(see People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 684 [1992]; People v Fair, 308 AD2d597 [2003]).
Trial counsel provided meaningful representation at all stages of the proceedings (seePeople v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).[*2]
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see Peoplev Felix, 58 NY2d 156 [1983]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.