| People v Hand |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 05095 [140 AD3d 636] |
| June 28, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Aaron Hand, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Abigail Everett ofcounsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David M. Cohn of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), renderedSeptember 21, 2010, as amended September 23, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jurytrial, of enterprise corruption, scheme to defraud in the first degree, conspiracy in thefifth degree, five counts of grand larceny in the first degree and 18 counts of grandlarceny in the second degree and sentencing him to an aggregate term of8
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weightof the evidence (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence established that themortgage brokerage business headed by defendant was a "criminal enterprise," in thatdefendant and his accomplices shared "a common purpose of engaging in criminalconduct associated in an ascertainable structure" (Penal Law § 460.20 [3])by engaging in mortgage fraud, conducting fraudulent transfers of property to "strawbuyers" and diverting the mortgage proceeds to shell accounts and corrupt individualswithin their control (seegenerally People v Kancharla, 23 NY3d 294, 303-306 [2014]). The evidencealso demonstrated that, in making loans, banks relied on the misrepresentations of buyers'incomes and assets, as well as inflated property appraisals, that were provided bydefendant and his accomplices, and thus the evidence established defendant's guilt of thegrand larceny charges, along with conspiracy and scheme to defraud. We haveconsidered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments relating to the sufficiency andweight of the evidence.
By declining the trial court's offer of a jury instruction on the issue of thegeographical jurisdiction of New York County, defendant waived any challenge to venueas an issue of fact (see People v Greenberg, 89 NY2d 553 [1997]). To the extentthat his pretrial motion to dismiss all but the enterprise corruption count on that groundcould be deemed to preserve a claim that venue was improper as a matter of law, wereject that claim.
With regard to the second-[*2]degree conspiracyconviction, arising out of a plot to murder a witness who testified at the trial, defendant'sguilty plea forfeited review of his venue claim (see People v Williams, 14 NY2d568 [1964]). Moreover, that claim is unpreserved and waived. Concur—Friedman,J.P., Andrias, Richter and Kahn, JJ.