Opinion
No. 386 KA 23-00132
07-03-2024
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT L. RAINEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CAMBARERI & BRENNECK, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. KRISTYNA S. MILLS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WATERTOWN (MORGAN R. MAYER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
CAMBARERI & BRENNECK, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
KRISTYNA S. MILLS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WATERTOWN (MORGAN R. MAYER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., BANNISTER, MONTOUR, DELCONTE, AND HANNAH, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (David A. Renzi, J.), rendered October 12, 2022. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
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 possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (§ 165.45 [1]). 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 [2007]), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [1987]). The victim testified at trial that, without her knowledge or permission, defendant signed the victim's name on a check made payable to her, deposited the check into their joint account, and then withdrew the funds from the account the next day. Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence established that he acted with larcenous intent (see People v Lane, 25 A.D.3d 517, 518 [1st Dept 2006], affd 7 N.Y.3d 888 [2006]), and he "may not evade liability for larcenous conduct merely because the stolen funds were funneled through [a joint] bank account" (People v Rodriguez, 34 N.Y.3d 967, 969 [2019]; see People v Collins, 273 A.D.2d 802, 803 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 933 [2000]). Moreover, although defendant testified that the victim gave him permission to deposit the check and withdraw the funds, the victim, as noted above, denied giving such permission, and we accord great deference to the jury's credibility determinations (see People v Swackhammer, 65 A.D.3d 713, 714 [3d Dept 2009]; People v Harris, 56 A.D.3d 1267, 1268 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 925 [2009]).
Defendant's challenges to the jury charge are not preserved for our review, and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see People v Waggoner, 218 A.D.3d 1221, 1222 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 1082 [2023], reconsideration denied 41 N.Y.3d 967 [2024]; People v Santiago, 195 A.D.3d 1460, 1461 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1099 [2021]; People v Streeter, 21 A.D.3d 1291, 1291-1292 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 898 [2006]).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.