| People v Gunther |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 04197 [172 AD3d 1403] |
| May 29, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Matthew Gunther, Appellant. |
John Brian Macreery, Katonah, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco,William C. Milaccio, and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Anne E.Minihan, J.), rendered January 31, 2017, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree,criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (3 counts), forgery in the seconddegree (15 counts), criminal tax fraud in the fourth degree, and offering a false instrument forfiling in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant, who was employed as a bank teller, was charged with various crimes basedon his alleged theft of money from a bank customer's account. Viewing the evidence in the lightmost favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), wefind that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt ofgrand larceny in the second degree, criminal possession of a forged instrument in the seconddegree (3 counts), forgery in the second degree (15 counts), criminal tax fraud in the fourthdegree, and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree. Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunityto view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2NY3d 383, 410 [2004]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guiltwas not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
We agree with the County Court's determination to admit bank statements into evidencethrough the testimony of the bank records custodian. That witness testified that he was familiarwith the record-keeping practices of the bank, that the records were made in the regular course ofthe bank's business, that it was the regular course of the bank's business to make the records, andthat the records were made contemporaneously with the transactions reflected in them(see CPLR 4518; People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579-580 [1986]; People v Bonhomme, 85 AD3d939, 940 [2011]).
Further, computer reproductions of bank withdrawal slips were properly admitted intoevidence. The original withdrawal slips were "scanned to store a digital 'image' of the hard copydocument" (People v Kangas, 28NY3d 984, 985 [2016], quoting CPLR 4539 [b]). A reproduction of such a digital image is"admissible in evidence as the original" where is it "authenticated by competent testimony oraffidavit," which must include information about "the manner or method by which tampering ordegradation of the reproduction is prevented" (CPLR 4539 [b]; see People v Kangas, 28NY3d at 985). Here, the reproductions of the withdrawal slips were properly authenticated by thetestimony of a document review specialist, which included information about the prevention oftampering or degradation.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Cohen, LaSalle andConnolly, JJ., concur.