| People v Dunham |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08748 [78 AD3d 1073] |
| November 23, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Denise Dunham, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (William C. Milaccio, RichardLongworth Hecht, and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Loehr,J.), rendered August 1, 2008, convicting her of grand larceny in the third degree (two counts),falsifying business records in the first degree (seven counts), and official misconduct, upon a juryverdict, and imposing 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant toCPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant argues that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence variousdocuments. The majority of these documents were properly admitted under the business recordsexception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 [a]; 4539 [a]; Ed Guth Realty vGingold, 34 NY2d 440, 446 [1974]; People v Haque, 70 AD3d 967 [2010];Kaliontzakis v Papadakos, 69 AD3d 803 [2010]; Matter of Thomma, 232 AD2d422 [1996]; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932 [1992]). To the extent that any documentwas improperly admitted into evidence, the error was harmless, as there was overwhelmingevidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to herconviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People vMiller, 59 AD3d 463 [2009]).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's remarks during summation constitutedreversible error is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant either failed to object to theremarks or her objections were sustained without any further request for curative instructions or amistrial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dorsette, 47 AD3d 728 [2008]; Peoplev Carter, 36 AD3d 624 [2007]). In any event, the challenged remarks, for the most part, werefair comment on the evidence or were responsive to defense counsel's summation (see Peoplev Crawford, 54 AD3d 961 [2008]; People v Applewhite, 50 AD3d 1046 [2008]).Although one of the remarks was improper, it was not so egregious as to deprive the defendant ofa fair trial (see People v Philbert, 60 AD3d 698 [2009]; People v Nisvis, 56 [*2]AD3d 574 [2008]). Skelos, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.