| People v Mulligan-Moore |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08474 [112 AD3d 1154] |
| December 19, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vPegeen Mulligan-Moore, Appellant. |
—[*1] Paul Czajka, District Attorney, Hudson (H. Neal Conolly of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Nichols, J.), renderedJune 21, 2011 in Columbia County, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of thecrimes of grand larceny in the second degree (two counts), grand larceny in the thirddegree (two counts), computer trespass (two counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree,falsifying business records in the first degree (eight counts), tampering with publicrecords in the first degree (two counts), obstructing governmental administration in thesecond degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and attemptedforgery in the second degree.
Defendant, a clerk and bookkeeper for the Town of Kinderhook, Columbia County,stole several hundred thousand dollars from the Town over a three-year period. She leftthat employment and performed similar tasks for the Town of Greenport, ColumbiaCounty, where she stole over $50,000. Defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to a 20-countindictment charging her with numerous offenses related to the thefts and her efforts toconceal them, with no promises being made as to the sentence. Supreme Court sentenceddefendant to an aggregate prison term of 3 to 9 years and ordered her to pay restitution.
Defendant now appeals, arguing solely that the sentence imposed was harsh andexcessive. We disagree. Supreme Court acknowledged that it had reviewed the letterswritten in support of defendant, the presentence investigation report, and indications thather crimes were motivated by a shopping addiction. It questioned her claim of addiction,however, and stressed [*2]the scope of her deceit instealing massive sums of money from the two towns over several years. Under thesecircumstances, we perceive no extraordinary circumstances nor any abuse in discretionthat would warrant a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Farnsworth, 103AD3d 982, 984 [2013]; People v Helstein, 95 AD3d 1564, 1564 [2012], lvdenied 19 NY3d 997 [2012]).
Stein, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.