| People v McLean |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02323 [71 AD3d 1500] |
| March 19, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth G.McLean, Appellant. |
—[*1] Donald H. Dodd, District Attorney, Oswego (Michael G. Cianfarano of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., J.), renderedNovember 30, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of arson in thesecond degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree and criminal mischief in the seconddegree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict ofarson in the second degree (Penal Law § 150.15), reckless endangerment in the seconddegree (§ 120.20) and criminal mischief in the second degree (§ 145.10). Viewingthe evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight ofthe evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Although adifferent result would not have been unreasonable, it cannot be said that the jury failed to givethe testimony and the conflicting inferences that may be drawn therefrom the weight they shouldbe accorded (see generally id.). To the extent that defendant further contends that theverdict is repugnant, he failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People vAlfaro, 66 NY2d 985, 987 [1985]; People v Carter, 21 AD3d 1295, 1296 [2005], affd 7 NY3d875 [2006]) and, in any event, it is without merit (see generally People v Trappier, 87NY2d 55, 58-59 [1995]).
We reject defendant's challenge to the amount of the restitution order. The owner of thebuilding damaged by the fire testified at the restitution hearing that he was required tosubstantiate by documentary evidence the value and cost of the labor and materials needed torehabilitate the building after the fire before he could receive any payments on his insuranceclaim. In addition, the mortgage company that administered the insurance company's paymentsconducted its own inspection of the rehabilitation work. Contrary to defendant's contention, wetherefore conclude that County Court did not erroneously delegate its obligation to determine theamount of restitution to the insurance company, and the court properly determined that thepayments by the insurance company on the claim constituted evidence of the victim's losses as aresult of the fire (see generally People vTzitzikalakis, 8 NY3d 217, 220-222 [2007]; People v Consalvo, 89 NY2d 140,145 [1996]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Sconiers, Green and Gorski, JJ.