People v. Isakov

• Decision Date: 13 August 2014
• Citation: 990 N.Y.S.2d 828,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05803,120 A.D.3d 589
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Mikhail ISAKOV, also known as Mikhail Izaikov, also known as Mikhail Izraikov, appellant. The People, etc., respondent, v. Arthur Ibragimov, appellant. The People, etc., respondent, v. David Ibragimov, also known as David Ibragmchayev, appellant. The People, etc., respondent, v. MB Globus, LLC, appellant. The People, etc., respondent, v. AN International, LLC, appellant. The People, etc., respondent, v. MA Concord, LLC, appellant. The People, etc., respondent, v. NA Continental Group, LLC, appellant. The People, etc., respondent, v. SI Premier Enterprises, LLC, appellant. The People, etc., respondent, v. Jan Gilbert, etc., appellant.

120 A.D.3d 589

990 N.Y.S.2d 828

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05803

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Mikhail ISAKOV, also known as Mikhail Izaikov, also known as Mikhail Izraikov, appellant.

The People, etc., respondent,

v.Arthur Ibragimov, appellant.

The People, etc., respondent,

v.David Ibragimov, also known as David Ibragmchayev, appellant.

The People, etc., respondent,

v.MB Globus, LLC, appellant.

The People, etc., respondent,

v.AN International, LLC, appellant.

The People, etc., respondent,

v.MA Concord, LLC, appellant.

The People, etc., respondent,

v.NA Continental Group, LLC, appellant.

The People, etc., respondent,

v.SI Premier Enterprises, LLC, appellant.

The People, etc., respondent,

v.Jan Gilbert, etc., appellant.

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

Aug. 13, 2014.

Michael H. Soroka, Mineola, N.Y., for appellantMikhail Isakov, also known as Mikhail Izaikov, also known as Mikhail Izraikov; Edward J. Mandery, Mineola, N.Y., for appellantArthur Ibragimov; LaRusso & Conway, Mineola, N.Y. (Joseph R. Conway of counsel), for appellantsDavid Ibragimov, also known as David Ibragmchayev, MB Globus, LLC, AN International, LLC, MA Concord, LLC, NA Continental Group, LLC, and SI Premier Enterprises, LLC; Borstein & Sheinbaum, New York, N.Y. (Leon Borstein of counsel), for appellantJan Gilbert(adopting the brief filed on behalf of the other appellants)(one brief filed).

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Hannah Stith Long of counsel), for respondent.

Appeals (1) by the defendantsMikhail Isakov, also known as Mikhail Izaikov, also known as Mikhail Izraikov, Arthur Ibragimov, and David Ibragimov, also known as David Ibragmchayev, respectively, from three judgments (one as to each defendant) of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Reichbach, J.), rendered April 4, 2012, as amended April 5, 2012, convicting each of them of violating Social Services Law § 366–f(1)(b) and offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree (eight counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence, (2) by the defendantMB Globus, LLC, from a judgment of the same court rendered April 5, 2012, convicting it of violating Social Services Law § 366–f(1)(b) and offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree (six counts), after the same nonjury trial, and imposing sentence, (3) by the defendantMA Concord, LLC, from a judgment of the same court rendered April 5, 2012, convicting it of violating Social Services Law § 366–f(1)(b) and offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree (two counts), after the same nonjury trial, and imposing sentence, (4) by the defendantsNA Continental Group, LLC, AN International, LLC, and SI Premier Enterprises, LLC, respectively, from three judgments of the same court(one as to each defendant), rendered April 5, 2012, convicting each of them of violating Social Services Law § 366–f(1)(b), after the same nonjury trial, and imposing sentence, and (5) by the defendantJan Gilbert from a judgment of the same court rendered February 28, 2012, convicting him of offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree (two counts), after the same nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgments, as amended, and the judgments are affirmed.

The defendants' contention that the convictions of violating Social Services Law § 366–f(1)(b) were not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2];People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919).In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution( seePeople v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the convictions.

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5];People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 346, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( seePeople v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053;People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt as to all of the crimes were not against the weight of the evidence ( seePeople v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

The defendants' contention that the verdicts are repugnant is without merit ( seePeople v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 4, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617;People v. Payne, 40...