| People v Davis |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01080 [114 AD3d 1287] |
| February 14, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anthony Davis, Appellant. |
—[*1] Brooks T. Baker, District Attorney, Bath (John C. Tunney of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Marianne Furfure, A.J.),rendered May 3, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of grandlarceny in the fourth degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a juryverdict of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1]) andcriminal mischief in the fourth degree (§ 145.00 [1]). The evidence, viewed in thelight most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621[1983]), is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see generally People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Contrary to defendant's contention, thetestimony of the accomplices is supported by sufficient corroborative evidence(see CPL 60.22 [1]). One of the nonaccomplice witnesses testified that, prior tothe commission of the crime, defendant and his two accomplices discussed in herpresence their intention to go to the victim's home and steal property, and she thereafterobserved the three men leave together and return together (see People v Swift,241 AD2d 949, 949 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 881 [1997], reconsiderationdenied 91 NY2d 1013 [1997]). Another nonaccomplice witness testified that sheobserved defendant in possession of the stolen safe and some of its contents (seePeople v La Porte, 217 AD2d 821, 821-822 [1995]; People v Hadden, 210AD2d 546, 547 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 910 [1995]). The testimony of thosewitnesses "tended to connect [defendant] to the crime and harmonized with the narrativeprovided by the accomplices" (People v Hawley, 286 AD2d 559, 561 [2001]),such "that the jury [could have been] reasonably satisfied that the accomplice[s] [were]telling the truth" (People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 630 [1975]). Viewing theevidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict isagainst the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).
We further conclude that County Court's finding with respect to the amount ofrestitution is supported by the requisite preponderance of the evidence presented at therestitution hearing (see CPL 400.30 [4]). The court properly credited thetestimony of the victim, a collector of currency for more than 40 years, with respect to thevalue of the stolen bills (seePeople v Ford, 77 AD3d 1176, 1176-1177 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d816 [2011]). The court also properly credited the victim's testimony concerning the costto repair the damage to his home, which was supported by invoices from his contractor(see People v Empey, 73AD3d 1387, 1389 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 804 [2010]).Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.