| People v Ramsundar |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02857 [138 AD3d 891] |
| April 13, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shane Ramsundar, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Angie Louie and Alan S. Axelrod ofcounsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Robert J. Masters, John M.Castellano, and Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Holder, J.), rendered January 11, 2012, convicting him of grand larceny in the seconddegree (8 counts), grand larceny in the third degree (13 counts), grand larceny in thefourth degree, money laundering in the second degree (2 counts), money laundering inthe third degree (2 counts), criminal impersonation in the first degree (19 counts), andscheme to defraud in the first degree (4 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hearthe testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410[2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing therecord here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant further contends that the Supreme Court denied him the constitutionalright to present a defense (see generally Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284[1973]; Washington v Texas, 388 US 14 [1967]) by precluding him fromeliciting testimony that would demonstrate the complainants' bias or motive to fabricate.However, the defendant's constitutional claims are unpreserved for appellate review,since he did not assert a constitutional right to introduce the excluded evidence at trial(see People v Simmons, 106AD3d 1115, 1116 [2013]). In any event, the court's rulings were a providentexercise of discretion, as the defendant failed to offer a good faith basis for the proposedline of inquiry (see People vHicks, 88 AD3d 817, 818-819 [2011]; People v Garcia, 47 AD3d 830, 831 [2008]; People v Mestres, 41 AD3d618 [2007]; People vWalsh, 35 AD3d 637 [2006]).
The testimony of the People's witness who summarized certain voluminous recordswas properly admitted (seePeople v Haque, 70 AD3d 967, 968 [2010]; People v Potter, 255 AD2d763 [1998]; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932 [1992]).
[*2] The sentence imposed was not excessive (seePeople v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]), and the amount of restitution was notexcessive (see People v Stubbs, 281 AD2d 498, 499 [2001]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Hall, Malteseand LaSalle, JJ., concur.