| People v Sukhdeo |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00777 [103 AD3d 673] |
| February 6, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Stephen Sukhdeo, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, and Rebecca Height of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Camacho, J.), rendered March 3, 2010, convicting him of grand larceny in the seconddegree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (threecounts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish hisguilt of grand larceny in the second degree is only partially preserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Persaud, 98 AD3d 527, 528 [2012]). In any event,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 prove thedefendant's guilt of grand larceny in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt(see People v Mishkin, 134 AD2d 529 [1987]). Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence(see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), wenevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hearthe testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004],cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]). Upon reviewing the record herein, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt withrespect to grand larceny in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence(see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's challenge to a portion of the testimony of the victim's sister onhearsay grounds is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Borrero, 79 AD3d767, 768 [2010]). In any event, the contested testimony was not hearsay, since it wasnot offered for its truth, but rather " 'to provide necessary background information to thejury' " (People v Bilal, 79AD3d 900, 901 [2010], quoting People v Johnson, 40 AD3d 1011, 1012 [2007]; see People v Walker, 70 AD3d870, 871 [2010]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remainingcontention. Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Miller, JJ., concur.