People v. Udeh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Udeh

2017 NY Slip Op 3781, 150 A.D.3d 900, 53 N.Y.S.3d 710

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 3, 2017

Docket2015-06832

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3781 (People v. Udeh) 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. Udeh, 2017 NY Slip Op 3781, 150 A.D.3d 900, 53 N.Y.S.3d 710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingram, J.), rendered July 20, 2015, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree, scheme to defraud in the first degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and health care fraud in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of grand larceny in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]). In any event, viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of the crimes of grand larceny in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence {see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to the counts of grand larceny in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 646 [2006]).

*901 The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Chambers, J.P., Sgroi, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingram, J.), rendered July 20, 2015, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree, scheme to defraud in the first degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and health care fraud in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of grand larceny in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]). In any event, viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of the crimes of grand larceny in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence {see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to the counts of grand larceny in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 646 [2006]).

*901 The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Chambers, J.P., Sgroi, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3781, 150 A.D.3d 900, 53 N.Y.S.3d 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-udeh-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack