People v Laurent

Annotate this Case
People v Laurent 2017 NY Slip Op 09090 Decided on December 22, 2017 Appellate Division, Fourth 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 December 22, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
1543 KA 15-00158

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

JEAN J. LAURENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



CARA A. WALDMAN, FAIRPORT, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (HEATHER P. HINES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered October 3, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of falsifying business records in the first degree and petit larceny.

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 falsifying business records in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.10) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

Defendant correctly concedes that he failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial based upon misconduct by the prosecutor on summation (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and 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]; People v Smith, 129 AD3d 1549, 1549-1550 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 971 [2015]).

Entered: December 22, 2017

Mark W. Bennett

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.