People v Bloom

People v Bloom 2013 NY Slip Op 00850 Released on February 8, 2013 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.

Released on February 8, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
126 KA 10-02222

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

v

LEON BLOOM, JR., ALSO KNOWN AS LEON C. BLOOM, ALSO KNOWN AS LEON C. BLOOM, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.


Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered June 3, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of grand larceny in the fourth degree.


BRIDGET L. FIELD, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.


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]). As defendant correctly concedes, his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction is not preserved for our review because defendant failed to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal after presenting proof (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61, rearg denied 97 NY2d 678). In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495) and, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). "[T]he jury was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and, on this record, it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded" (People v Orta, 12 AD3d 1147, 1147, lv denied 4 NY3d 801).

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Entered: February 8, 2013
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court