People v. Houghtaling

• Decision Date: 02 December 2010
• Citation: 912 N.Y.S.2d 155,79 A.D.3d 1155
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State Of New York, Respondent, v. Renee HOUGHTALING, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

912 N.Y.S.2d 155
79 A.D.3d 1155

The PEOPLE of the State Of New York, Respondent,
v.
Renee HOUGHTALING, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Dec. 2, 2010.

912 N.Y.S.2d 156

Tully Law Office, P.C., Yorktown Heights (Andrew W. Tully of counsel), for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, J.P., SPAIN, LAHTINEN, KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ.

LAHTINEN, J.

79 A.D.3d 1155

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered August 6, 2007, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree.

From 1998 to 2005, defendant, together with family members and others, allegedly engaged in an elaborate scheme whereby they intentionally caused over 20 motor vehicle accidents at various places in Albany County. They would then, among other

79 A.D.3d 1156

things, create various documents following each accident that were submitted to insurance companies to obtain payments for nonexistent or grossly exaggerated costs and expenses. While assorted strategies were purportedly used to accomplish their goal, the one relevant on appeal allegedly occurred as follows: defendant knew of a one-way entrance to off-street businesses on Central Avenue in the City of Albany that drivers frequently used as an exit (briefly going the wrong way); her husband waited in a vehicle near that place in the early morning hours on May 6, 2001 until he saw a driver attempting to exit through the one-way entrance; he then purposely drove into the driver causing an accident (for which the other driver appeared at fault); thereafter, among other things, defendant created a receipt for fictitious vehicle rental charges that was submitted to and paid by the other driver's insurance.

In 2006, a grand jury indicted defendant and seven codefendants in a 72-count superceding indictment ¹ for sundry crimes arising from their purported conduct. One codefendant, Willie Cook, cooperated with the prosecution and five codefendants were eventually tried together. Following a lengthy trial, defendant and her husband (codefendant Joseph Houghtaling) were each convicted of only count 12, which charged falsifying business records in the first degree flowing from the May 6, 2001 incident. The jury acquitted on all other charges. Defendant was sentenced to one year in jail and now appeals.

Defendant contends that count 12 of the indictment was factually insufficient and should have been dismissed as vague and duplicitous. This issue was not properly preserved for review since defendant did not make a motion to dismiss upon such grounds until trial and, thus, the motion was manifestly untimely ( see People v. Davidson, 98 N.Y.2d 738, 739, 751 N.Y.S.2d 161, 780 N.E.2d 972 [2002]; People v. Clark, 51 A.D.3d 1050, 1052, 857 N.Y.S.2d 758 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 957, 863 N.Y.S.2d 141, 893 N.E.2d 447 [2008]; People v. Stabb, 9 A.D.3d 738, 739, 779 N.Y.S.2d 866 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 712, 785 N.Y.S.2d 40, 818 N.E.2d 682 [2004]; People v. Morey, 224 A.D.2d 730, 731, 637 N.Y.S.2d 500 [1996], lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 1022, 644 N.Y.S.2d 156, 666 N.E.2d 1070 [1996] ). The time restrictions

912 N.Y.S.2d 157

for filing a motion to dismiss "are not casual" ( People v. Davidson, 98 N.Y.2d at 739, 751 N.Y.S.2d 161, 780 N.E.2d 972; see People v. Jackson, 48 A.D.3d 891, 893, 851 N.Y.S.2d 677 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 841, 859 N.Y.S.2d 400, 889 N.E.2d 87 [2008] ), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction as to this unpreserved argument ( see People v. Adamson, 47 A.D.3d 318, 322, n. 5, 849 N.Y.S.2d 674 [2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 807, 857 N.Y.S.2d 41, 886 N.E.2d 806 [2008]; People v. Vanderpool, 217 A.D.2d 716, 717, 629 N.Y.S.2d 307 [1995], lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 847, 634 N.Y.S.2d 457, 658 N.E.2d 235 [1995] ).

We are unpersuaded by defendant's assertion that the verdict

79 A.D.3d 1157

was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. A jury's verdict will be upheld as legally sufficient if, viewed in...