People v. Barreau

• Decision Date: 15 October 1996
• Citation: 648 N.Y.S.2d 544,232 A.D.2d 238
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pierre BARREAU, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 544

648 N.Y.S.2d 544

232 A.D.2d 238

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Pierre BARREAU, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

Oct. 15, 1996.

Art Middlemiss, for Respondent.

Lauris Wren, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MURPHY, P.J., and RUBIN, ROSS, WILLIAMS and ANDRIAS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., at Huntley hearing; Arlene Silverman, J., at Mapp hearing, jury trial and sentence), rendered October 15, 1994, convicting defendant of scheme to defraud in the first degree, four counts of grand larceny in the third degree, two counts of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, and three counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years on the third-degree grand larceny convictions, 2 to 4 years on the scheme to defraud conviction and two of the fourth-degree grand larceny convictions, to run consecutively to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years on the attempted third-degree grand larceny convictions and the remaining fourth-degree grand larceny conviction, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his convictions for larceny and attempted larceny of Tiffany's jewelry store is unpreserved for appellate review, as his motion to dismiss was not specifically directed at the deficiencies now raised on appeal (see, People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the evidence overwhelmingly established that, at the time he passed the bad checks, defendant intended or believed that the drawee banks, where defendant had opened accounts with other worthless checks, would refuse payment upon presentation (Penal Law § 190.05[1]; § 190.10[1],[2][b]. Defendant's perseverance in passing the worthless checks at Tiffany's did not demonstrate that he believed the checks would be honored by the drawees, as he suggests, but only that Tiffany's would approve the checks enabling him to escape with the merchandise. Nor do we find, upon an independent review of the facts, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

The court did not commit reversible error by adding to the verdict sheet, over objection, the names of the financial...