| People v Singh |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02606 [105 AD3d 1214] |
| April 18, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vKanwarjit Singh, Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joshua Harris Povill of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams Jr., J.),rendered June 8, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes ofgrand larceny in the second degree and criminal tax fraud in the fifth degree.
Defendant, the owner of a gas station and food mart, was involved in a scheme inwhich he, among other things, allowed customers to use food stamps for ineligible itemsand filed fraudulent tax returns. As a result, he was charged in an 18-count indictmentwith numerous theft-related crimes. In satisfaction thereof, he pleaded guilty to grandlarceny in the second degree and criminal tax fraud in the fifth degree. During the pleaproceedings, the People recommended that defendant be sentenced to concurrent termsof 3 to 9 years in prison on the grand larceny conviction and one year in jail on the taxfraud conviction, and that he make full restitution. County Court agreed with the terms ofthe plea bargain, but indicated that it was inclined to sentence defendant to 4 to 12 yearsin prison on the grand larceny conviction unless the parties made a convincing argumentotherwise at sentencing. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to concurrent termsof 4 to 12 years in prison on the grand larceny conviction and one year in jail on the taxfraud conviction, and directed him to make full restitution, which he had already paid.Defendant now appeals.
Defendant's sole contention is that his sentence on the grand larceny conviction isharsh and excessive. Notwithstanding defendant's lack of a criminal record and hispayment of full restitution (seePeople v Tesar, 65 AD3d 716, 717-718 [2009]), we are not persuaded that thesentence should be reduced. Defendant used his position as a business owner to engagein a [*2]series of dishonest activities over the course ofnearly two years for the sole purpose of enriching himself. Given the gravity of hismisconduct, as well as the fact that he entered his guilty plea with the full understandingthat he would likely receive a sentence of 4 to 12 years in prison on the grand larcenyconviction, we find no abuse of discretion nor any extraordinary circumstanceswarranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Helstein, 95AD3d 1564, 1564 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 997 [2012]; People v Birch, 56 AD3d808, 809 [2008]).
Mercure, J.P., Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.