Opinion
02-06-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lewis MOORE, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.
Frank J. Nebush, Jr., Public Defender, Utica (Patrick J. Marthage of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Scott D. McNamara, District Attorney, Utica (Steven G. Cox of Counsel), for Respondent.
Frank J. Nebush, Jr., Public Defender, Utica (Patrick J. Marthage of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Scott D. McNamara, District Attorney, Utica (Steven G. Cox of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, and WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of grand larceny in the fourth degree ( Penal Law § 155.30 [1 ] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in admitting in evidence a spreadsheet listing the value of jackets stolen from the retail store and that the evidence of the value of the jackets stolen is legally insufficient to support the conviction. In objecting to the admission of the exhibit in evidence, defendant contended only that it contradicted the testimony of the store owner. We thus conclude that defendant failed to preserve for our review his present contention that the document did not meet the foundational requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see People v. Evans, 59 A.D.3d 1127, 1128, 872 N.Y.S.2d 840, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 815, 881 N.Y.S.2d 23, 908 N.E.2d 931 ; see also People v. Billip, 65 A.D.3d 430, 430, 883 N.Y.S.2d 528, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 834, 890 N.Y.S.2d 450, 918 N.E.2d 965 ; People v. Sanchez, 260 A.D.2d 178, 178–179, 688 N.Y.S.2d 511, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1026, 697 N.Y.S.2d 585, 719 N.E.2d 946 ). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ). By making only a general motion to dismiss the indictment, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 ). In any event, we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.