Opinion
May 20, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Posner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The charges against the defendant, a physician, arose out of allegations that she billed Medicaid for "Specialist Consultations" when none had been made and "unusual travel" expenses when none were incurred. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced at trial established that the defendant collected over $100,000 for consultations that never took place and $3,000 for travel expenses that were not incurred (see, People v Albanese, 144 A.D.2d 952; People v Varas, 110 A.D.2d 646, 648). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Additionally, we find that defendant's contention that she was prejudiced by the trial court's questioning of the People's witness, Elizabeth Lanigan, to be without merit. The trial court's questioning of this witness merely served to clarify the voluminous documentary evidence already presented to the jury (see, People v Witherspoon, 157 A.D.2d 811). Accordingly, we find that the court acted properly in an effort to clarify confusing documents and facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 55). Kunzeman, J.P., Balletta, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.