People v Pujji

2010 NY Slip Op 05430 [74 AD3d 1100]

June 15, 2010

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2010

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jagdeep Pujji, Also Known as Jack Pujji,Appellant.

—[*1]Bennett M. Epstein, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Ayelet Sela and Gary Fidel ofcounsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from three judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kohm, J.), all rendered November 17, 2008, convicting him of (1) grand larceny in the thirddegree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, scheme to defraud in the first degree, and scheme todefraud in the second degree under indictment No. 2556/06, (2) grand larceny in the fourthdegree (three counts) under indictment No. 1040/07, and (3) grand larceny in the third degreeand grand larceny in the fourth degree under indictment No. 1564/07, upon a jury verdict, andsentencing him, on the two counts of grand larceny in the third degree under indictments No.2556/06 and 1564/07, respectively, to indeterminate terms of 1½ to 4½ yearsimprisonment, and on the three counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree under indictmentNo. 1040/07, and two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree under indictments No.2556/06 and 1564/07, respectively, to indeterminate terms of 11/3 to 4 yearsimprisonment, with all of the grand larceny sentences to be served consecutively, and a definiteterm of one year imprisonment on the count of scheme to defraud in the first degree, and anindeterminate term of 11/3 to 4 imprisonment years on the count of scheme todefraud in the second degree under indictment No. 2556/06, with the sentences on the scheme todefraud counts to be served concurrently with each other and with the sentences on the grandlarceny counts.

Ordered that the judgment rendered under indictment No. 1040/07 is modified, as a matter ofdiscretion in the interest of justice, by providing that the sentences imposed upon the threecounts of grand larceny in the fourth degree under that indictment, along with the sentencesimposed upon the counts of scheme to defraud in the first degree and scheme to defraud in thesecond degree, shall run concurrently with each other and with the sentence imposed upon thecount of grand larceny in the third degree under indictment No. 2556/06; as so modified, thejudgment rendered under indictment No. 1040/07 is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgments rendered under indictment Nos. 2556/06 and 1564/07 areaffirmed.

The prosecutor's remarks on summation constituted, for the most part, fair responses to [*2]defense counsel's summation, or fair comment on the evidence, orreasonable inferences therefrom (seePeople v Rudd, 62 AD3d 729 [2009]; People v Meeks, 56 AD3d 800, 801 [2008]; People vHolguin, 284 AD2d 343 [2001]). Where the remarks were improper, defense counsel'sobjections were sustained by the Supreme Court, and the curative instructions provided by theSupreme Court alleviated any prejudice that may have resulted from the remarks (see People v Ramsey, 48 AD3d709, 710 [2008]; People vWilliams, 14 AD3d 519 [2005]).

With regard to the aggregate sentence of 92/3 to 29 years imprisonment, wefind that, "while there was no legal impediment to the imposition of consecutive terms ofimprisonment for the defendant's convictions [of grand larceny in the third degree and grandlarceny in the fourth degree] because the subject [offenses] were predicated upon distinct actscommitted against separate victims (see People v Ramirez, 89 NY2d 444, 454 [1996];People v Brown, 80 NY2d 361, 364-365 [1992]; People v Brathwaite, 63 NY2d839, 843 [1984]; People v Blount,47 AD3d 825 [2008]; People vSmith, 46 AD3d 583 [2007]), the sentence imposed was excessive to the extentindicated herein" (People v Rivera,60 AD3d 788, 790-791 [2009], mod 15 NY3d 207 [2010]; see People v Lugo, 82 AD2d 812, 812-813 [1981]; People vKluger, 66 AD2d 826 [1978]; People v Borrero, 64 AD2d 637 [1978]). Rivera, J.P.,Leventhal, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.