Opinion
KA 02-00063
July 3, 2003.
Appeal from a judgment of Oneida County Court (Donalty, J.), entered November 30, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of grand larceny in the third degree.
FRANK J. NEBUSH, JR., PUBLIC DEFENDER, UTICA (ESTHER COHEN LEE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (CARL J. BOYKIN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, KEHOE, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law 155.35) for stealing a vehicle from the car dealership where he was employed. The contention of defendant that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish his intent to commit larceny was not preserved by his general motion to dismiss at the close of the People's case ( see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19; People v. Horn, 302 A.D.2d 975), or by his motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 ( see People v. Padro, 75 N.Y.2d 820, 821, rearg denied 75 N.Y.2d 1005; People v. Slavin, 299 A.D.2d 499). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see 470.15 [6] [a]). In addition, by consenting to the prosecutor's use of evidence of a prior bad act, defendant waived his contention that County Court's Ventimiglia ruling was erroneous ( see People v. Molina, 241 A.D.2d 329, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 835).