| People v Finkelstein |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06251 [75 AD3d 652] |
| July 27, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Steven Finkelstein, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Cafferri, Rebecca Height, and Jennifer Hagan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Blumenfeld, J.), rendered June 22, 2006, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree andwelfare fraud in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion todismiss the indictment on the ground of preindictment delay. While the People's approximately29-month delay from the time the Human Resources Administration referred the matter to theQueens County District Attorney's office until the date the People filed the indictment wasextensive, the unrefuted hearing testimony of the assistant district attorney charged withhandling the matter, testimony which the Supreme Court credited in its entirety, established goodcause for the delay (see People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241, 254 [1978]; see also People vBryant, 65 AD2d 333, 338 [1978]), and the other relevant factors all favor the prosecution(see People v Vernace, 96 NY2d 886, 888 [2001]; People v Taranovich, 37NY2d 442, 445 [1975]).
Also contrary to the defendant's contention, there was sufficient independent evidence tocorroborate the accomplice testimony adduced at trial (see CPL 60.22 [1]; People vBesser, 96 NY2d 136, 143-144 [2001]; see also People v Bretti, 68 NY2d 929, 930[1986]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conductan independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342[2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view thewitnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383,410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490,495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was notagainst the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contentions raised in hissupplemental pro se brief relating to the "moral certainty" standard are unpreserved for appellatereview and, in any event, are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Hall, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.