Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/People v. Finkelstein

People v. Finkelstein

11 A.D.3d 477, 782 N.Y.S.2d 377, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11664
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 4, 2004
StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 477 (People v. Finkelstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Finkelstein, 11 A.D.3d 477, 782 N.Y.S.2d 377, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), rendered March 7, 2003, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (eight counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his criminal intent is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]; People v Rosenblitt, 198 AD2d 382, 383 [1993]). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant possessed the requisite intent to defraud the State of New York through fraud[478]*478ulent Medicaid claims (see People v Rosenblitt, supra; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932, 934 [1992]; People v Chaitin, 94 AD2d 705, 705-706 [1983], affd 61 NY2d 683 [1984]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are. satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s contention that he was tried on a theory not presented in the indictment is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]), and in any event, is without merit (see People v Rivera, 268 AD2d 445 [2000]; People v Espinal, 208 AD2d 644, 645 [1994]).

The defendant was afforded the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, is without merit (see People v Tarikere, 173 AD2d 660 [1991]; People v Albanese, 144 AD2d 952 [1988]). Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Benevento
697 N.E.2d 584 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
People v. Gray
652 N.E.2d 919 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Chaitin
460 N.E.2d 1082 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
People v. Chaitin
94 A.D.2d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
People v. Albanese
144 A.D.2d 952 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Udzinski
146 A.D.2d 245 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Tarikere
173 A.D.2d 660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Weinberg
183 A.D.2d 932 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Rosenblitt
198 A.D.2d 382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Espinal
208 A.D.2d 644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Rivera
268 A.D.2d 445 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 A.D.3d 477, 782 N.Y.S.2d 377, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-finkelstein-nyappdiv-2004.