People v Parker

People v Parker 2012 NY Slip Op 00016 Decided on January 3, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 3, 2012
Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
6458 6204/08

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Verne Parker, Defendant-Appellant.




Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New
York (Sara Gurwitch of counsel), and Weil, Gotshal &
Manges, New York (Robert S. Levine of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Caleb
Kruckenberg of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered April 7, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing her to a term of 30 days, with 5 years' probation and a restitution order, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We further find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The evidence established that defendant charged car rental fees to her employer without a good faith belief that she was entitled to do so (see Penal Law § 155.15[1]; People v Zona, 14 NY3d 488, 493 [2010]), and that her actions caused her employer to become indebted to a rental company in an amount that exceeded $7,000.

Defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation and the court's charge are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. [*2]

To the extent defendant is claiming that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, we reject that claim (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 3, 2012

CLERK