| People v Gary |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01626 [115 AD3d 760] |
| March 12, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Alfred Gary, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Jason R.Richards of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (St.George, J.), rendered August 22, 2012, convicting him of conspiracy in the fourthdegree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. By decision and order on motiondated September 17, 2012, this Court, inter alia, granted the defendant's motion to stayexecution of the judgment pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the SupremeCourt, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establishthe defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibilityto conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (seePeople 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 the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the verdicts are repugnant is without merit (seePeople v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1 [1981]; People v Payne, 40 AD3d 660, 660 [2007]), since hisacquittals on the counts of scheme to defraud in the first degree, money laundering in thefirst degree, and money laundering in the second degree did not necessarily negate anessential element of conspiracy in the fourth degree.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of a coconspirator was properlyreceived into evidence under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Green, 92 AD3d953, 956 [2012]).[*2]
The defendant waived his contention that adocument offered by the People contained inadmissible hearsay by, prior to trial,stipulating to the admission into evidence of that document, among others.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion tostrike the testimony of a prosecution witness after he invoked the Fifth Amendmentprivilege against self-incrimination is without merit. The court providently exercised itsdiscretion in denying the defendant's motion, since the witness invoked the privilege withrespect to a collateral matter relating to general credibility (see People v Vargas,88 NY2d 363, 381 [1996]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson,Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.