Opinion
2014-02-14
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony DAVIS, Defendant–Appellant.
Rosemarie Richards, South New Berlin, for Defendant–Appellant. Brooks T. Baker, District Attorney, Bath (John C. Tunney of Counsel), for Respondent.
Rosemarie Richards, South New Berlin, for Defendant–Appellant. Brooks T. Baker, District Attorney, Bath (John C. Tunney of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30[1] ) and criminal mischief in the fourth degree (§ 145.00[1] ). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), is legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Contrary to defendant's contention, the testimony of the accomplices is supported by sufficient corroborative evidence ( seeCPL 60.22[1] ). One of the nonaccomplice witnesses testified that, prior to the commission of the crime, defendant and his two accomplices discussed in her presence their intention to go to the victim's home and steal property, and she thereafter observed the three men leave together and return together ( see People v. Swift, 241 A.D.2d 949, 949, 661 N.Y.S.2d 415,lv. denied91 N.Y.2d 881, 668 N.Y.S.2d 580, 691 N.E.2d 652,reconsideration denied91 N.Y.2d 1013, 676 N.Y.S.2d 141, 698 N.E.2d 970). Another nonaccomplice witness testified that she observed defendant in possession of the stolen safe and some of its contents ( see People v. La Porte, 217 A.D.2d 821, 821–822, 629 N.Y.S.2d 832;People v. Hadden, 210 A.D.2d 546, 547, 621 N.Y.S.2d 110,lv. denied85 N.Y.2d 910, 627 N.Y.S.2d 332, 650 N.E.2d 1334). The testimony of those witnesses “tended to connect [defendant] with the crime and harmonized with the narrative provided by the accomplices” ( People v. Hawley, 286 A.D.2d 559, 561, 729 N.Y.S.2d 558), such “that the jury [could have been] reasonably satisfied that the accomplice[s were] telling the truth” ( People v. Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624, 630, 376 N.Y.S.2d 436, 339 N.E.2d 139). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).
We further conclude that County Court's finding with respect to the amount of restitution is supported by the requisite preponderance of the evidence presented at the restitution hearing ( seeCPL 400.30[4] ). The court properly credited the testimony of the victim, a collector of currency for more than 40 years, with respect to the value of the stolen bills ( see People v. Ford, 77 A.D.3d 1176, 1176–1177, 910 N.Y.S.2d 235,lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 816, 929 N.Y.S.2d 805, 954 N.E.2d 96). The court also properly credited the victim's testimony concerning the cost to repair the damage to his home, which was supported by invoices from his contractor ( see People v. Empey, 73 A.D.3d 1387, 1389, 901 N.Y.S.2d 756,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 804, 908 N.Y.S.2d 164, 934 N.E.2d 898).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.