People v. Ogundu

• Decision Date: 07 November 2018
• Docket Number: Ind.No. 2962/13,2016–01125
• Citation: 84 N.Y.S.3d 897 (Mem),166 A.D.3d 656
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Dorothy N. OGUNDU, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

166 A.D.3d 656

84 N.Y.S.3d 897 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.Dorothy N. OGUNDU, Appellant.

2016–01125

Ind.No. 2962/13

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

Argued—October 2, 2018

November 7, 2018

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Cynthia Colt of counsel), for appellant.

Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Lisa Ellen Fleischmann, Travis Hill, and Michelle Maerov of counsel), for respondent.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SANDRA L. SGROI, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Barry A. Schwartz, J.), rendered January 22, 2016, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree (3 counts), offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (17 counts), falsifying business records in the first degree (5 counts), and forgery in the second degree (4 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

After conducting voir dire of prospective jurors in open court, the Supreme Court, accompanied by a court reporter, invited counsel into chambers—outside of the defendant's presence—to discuss peremptory and for-cause challenges, which were then given effect in open court in the defendant's presence. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the procedure employed by the court did not violate her right to be present during the impaneling of the jury, since the record indicates that the challenges discussed in chambers "were eventually given effect in [the defendant's] presence when challenged jurors were excused and others were sworn in open court" ( People v. Cohen, 201 A.D.2d 494, 495, 607 N.Y.S.2d 374 ; see People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 473, 568 N.Y.S.2d 721, 570 N.E.2d 1070 ; People v. Brown, 269 A.D.2d 539, 703 N.Y.S.2d 739; People v. Firrira, 258 A.D.2d 666, 685 N.Y.S.2d 787 ; People v. Harris, 212 A.D.2d 631, 632, 624 N.Y.S.2d 838 ; People v. Evans, 207 A.D.2d 500, 615 N.Y.S.2d 914 ; People v. Yonamine, 192 A.D.2d 687, 597 N.Y.S.2d 102 ).

The defendant's contention that she was deprived of a fair trial by the admission of evidence of prior bad acts is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Wallace, 123 A.D.3d 1151, 1151, 997 N.Y.S.2d 756 ) and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Cass, 18 N.Y.3d 553, 560, 942 N.Y.S.2d 416, 965 N.E.2d 918 ; People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241–42, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808 ).

The defendant's remaining...