| People v Pordy |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07081 [88 AD3d 746] |
| October 4, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Steven M. Pordy, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson,J.), rendered April 20, 2010, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, aiding orassisting in the giving of fraudulent returns (two counts), offering a false instrument for filing inthe first degree (seven counts), and conspiracy in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, andsentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of two to six years on the conviction ofgrand larceny in the second degree, and one to three years on each of the remaining convictions.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, byreducing the sentences on all counts to concurrent terms of five years of probation; as somodified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, RocklandCounty, to set the terms and conditions of probation, and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL460.50 (5) and 530.45 (6).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, upon reargument, the County Court properly adheredto its prior determination denying that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the indictmenton the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial (see CPL30.30).
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 of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d [*2]342 [2007]),we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear thetestimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], certdenied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight ofthe evidence (see People v Romero,7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Although we agree with the defendant that the County Court erred in admitting certainsummary exhibits introduced by the People that bore a column heading entitled, "Stolen SalesTax," that error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt andno significant probability that the error contributed to his conviction (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).
Under the particular circumstances here, the sentences are excessive to the extent indicatedherein.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Leventhal andRoman, JJ., concur.
Motion by the respondent on an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, RocklandCounty, rendered April 20, 2010, inter alia, for this Court to take judicial notice of threedocuments annexed to its motion papers as exhibits A, B, and C, respectively. By decision andorder on motion of this Court dated March 10, 2011, that branch of the motion which was for thisCourt to take judicial notice of the three documents was held in abeyance and referred to thepanel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, andupon the argument of the appeal, it is
Ordered that the branch of the motion which was for this Court to take judicial notice ofthree documents annexed to its motion papers as exhibits A, B, and C, respectively, is granted.Rivera, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.