People v Allison Connell

Annotate this Case
People v Connell 2006 NY Slip Op 04438 [30 AD3d 436] Decided on June 6, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 6, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
THOMAS A. ADAMS, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
2004-05380 DECISION & ORDER

[*1]The People, etc., respondent,

v

Allison Connell, appellant. (Ind. No. 1841/03)




Roger V. Archibald, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R.
Sternberg and Lauren Del Giorno of
counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz, J.), rendered June 4, 2004, convicting her of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.05[5]).

The defendant's contention that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit (see People v Albert, 85 NY2d 851; People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990, 992; People v Ray, 65 NY2d 282, 286; People v Lewis, 273 AD2d 254).
ADAMS, J.P., SANTUCCI, GOLDSTEIN and FISHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

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.