| People v Cockett |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04023 [95 AD3d 1230] |
| May 23, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Arthur Cockett, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Miller of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ambro, J.),rendered December 3, 2010, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree (two counts),scheme to defraud in the first degree, criminal possession of a forged instrument in the seconddegree, and falsifying business records in the first degree (eight counts), upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court,Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People established by a preponderance of theevidence that Suffolk County had geographical jurisdiction over the crimes of which thedefendant was convicted (see CPL 20.40 [2] [c]; 20.10 [4]; People v Lumpkins, 11 AD3d 563,564 [2004]; cf. Matter of Taub vAltman, 3 NY3d 30, 36 [2004]). Further, we reject the defendant's contention that hewas not given adequate notice of the basis on which Suffolk County asserted geographicaljurisdiction. The indictment, as supplemented by the People's bill of particulars, sufficientlyapprised the defendant of the asserted basis of geographical jurisdiction (see Matter of Taub vAltman, 3 NY3d at 40).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event,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 to establish the defendant's guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview 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 jury's opportunity to view the witnesses,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 not against theweight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in admitting evidence of [*2]uncharged crimes is without merit. The evidence of unchargedcrimes was probative on the issue of the defendant's knowledge and intent with respect to thecharged crimes (see People v Bayne, 82 NY2d 673, 676 [1993]; People vBastian, 294 AD2d 882, 883 [2002]; People v Evans, 294 AD2d 445, 445-446[2002]; People v Carelock, 278 AD2d 851 [2000]; People v Renzulli, 100 AD2d945 [1984]; cf. Matter of Brandon, 55 NY2d 206, 211 [1982]). Moreover, inasmuch asthe probative value of this evidence outweighed any potential for undue prejudice, the CountyCourt did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting this evidence (see People v Gamble, 18 NY3d386, 397-398 [2012]; People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]; cf. People v Wilkinson, 71 AD3d249, 254 [2010]). Finally, the Supreme Court gave appropriate limiting instructions as to theproper use of the challenged evidence (see People v Holden, 82 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2011]; People v Rock, 65 AD3d 558, 559[2009]; People v Melendez, 8 AD3d680, 681 [2004]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal andAustin, JJ., concur.