| People v Taylor |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02042 [82 AD3d 1016] |
| March 15, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Daivery Taylor et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Barbara D. Underwood, RoseannB. MacKechnie, and Monica Wagner of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant Daivery Taylor and separate appeal by the defendant Law Offices ofSilverman & Taylor from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), renderedJuly 31, 2006, convicting them each of scheme to defraud in the first degree and offering a falseinstrument for filing in the first degree (four counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposingsentences. By decision and order of this Court dated October 7, 2008, the judgment was reversed(see People v Taylor, 55 AD3d640 [2008]). By order of the Court of Appeals dated February 26, 2009, the People weregranted leave to appeal from the decision and order of this Court. The People, as limited by theirbrief, appealed, by permission, from so much of the decision and order of this Court as reversedso much of the judgment as convicted the defendant Law Offices of Silverman & Taylor ofoffering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (four counts). By order of the Court ofAppeals dated February 6, 2010, the decision and order of this Court was reversed insofar asappealed from, so much of the judgment as convicted the defendant Law Offices of Silverman &Taylor of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (four counts) was reinstated, andthe matter was remitted to this Court for further proceedings (see People v Taylor, 14 NY3d 727 [2010]). Justices Mastro andRoman have been substituted for Justice Carni and former Justice Lifson (see 22NYCRR 670.1 [c]).
Ordered that, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, so much of the judgment asconvicted the defendant Law Offices of Silverman & Taylor of offering a false instrument forfiling in the first degree (four counts) is affirmed.
The defendant Law Offices of Silverman & Taylor (hereinafter the defendant) was convictedof four counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, based upon its filing ofretainer statements with the New York State Office of Court Administration that contained falseor misleading information. The element of "intent to defraud," as articulated in the definition ofthe crime of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.35)"refers only to a defendant's state of mind in acting with a conscious aim and objective todefraud" (People v Taylor, 14 NY3d727, 729 [2010]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish the element of intent to defraud and every other element of the crime of offering a falseinstrument for filing in the first degree with respect to the four counts of that crime of which thedefendant was convicted (see Penal [*2]Law §175.35; Matter of Norman v Hynes,20 AD3d 125, 132 [2005]; People v Jacob, 248 AD2d 638, 639 [1998]; People vPapatonis, 243 AD2d 898, 900 [1997]; People v Chaitin, 94 AD2d 705 [1983],affd 61 NY2d 683 [1984]). Further, upon the exercise of our factual review power(see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt against the defendant withrespect to these crimes was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant's contention that the eavesdropping evidence was inadmissible hearsay is notpreserved for appellate review with respect to 5 of the 19 conversations admitted into evidence.In any event, the evidence was not hearsay, but properly admitted as part of the criminal resgestae (see People v Adames, 53AD3d 503 [2008]; People v Thompson, 186 AD2d 768 [1992]). Mastro, J.P., Florio,Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.