SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1310 

KA 12-01342 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHELE A. CASE, ALSO KNOWN AS MICHELE CASE, ALSO 

KNOWN AS MICHELLE A. CASE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

SHIRLEY A. GORMAN, BROCKPORT, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C.

Noonan, J.), rendered May 22, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon a jury verdict, of grand larceny in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law and as a matter of discretion in the

interest of justice and a new trial is granted. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her

following a jury trial of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law

§ 155.35 [1]) pursuant to a theory of larceny by false pretense. The

charge arose from defendant’s alleged submission to her employer of

time sheets and mileage vouchers that inflated the amount of

compensation to which she was entitled. 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 conclude that the verdict is not

against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley,

69 NY2d 490, 495). 

Defendant failed to preserve for our review her contention that

County Court erred in admitting certain documents in evidence (see CPL

470.05 [2]). We exercise our power to review that contention as a

matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6]

[a]), however, and we conclude that the error in the admission of

exhibits 1 through 7 (summary exhibits) deprived defendant of a fair

trial. We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and grant a

new trial. We conclude that the summary exhibits were improperly

admitted under the voluminous writings exception to the best evidence

rule inasmuch as defendant was not provided with the data underlying

those exhibits prior to trial (cf. People v Ash, 71 AD3d 688, 689, lv

denied 14 NY3d 885; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932, 934, lv denied 80

NY2d 977; see generally Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440, 452),
-2- 1310 

KA 12-01342 

nor were those exhibits based solely upon information already in

evidence (cf. People v Potter, 255 AD2d 763, 767; People v Ferraioli,

101 AD2d 629, 630-631). Defendant was thus denied “a full and fair

opportunity” to challenge the accuracy of the summary exhibits

(Weinberg, 183 AD2d at 934). Because the evidence against defendant

is not overwhelming, the error in admitting those exhibits is not

harmless (see People v Santiago, 17 NY3d 661, 673-674; People v

Williams, 101 AD3d 1728, 1729, lv denied 21 NY3d 1021). We note,

however, that we reject that part of defendant’s contention concerning

the court’s alleged error in admitting exhibit 10 in evidence. 

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People provided a sufficient

foundation for the admission of that exhibit, which consisted of

computer printouts of data recorded in the medical records database

maintained by defendant’s employer (see generally People v Cratsley,

86 NY2d 81, 89).

We further agree with defendant that she was denied effective

assistance of counsel based upon defense counsel’s failure to review

the summary exhibits or object to their admission in evidence (see

generally People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713), and thus a new

trial is warranted on that ground as well. Although “[i]solated

errors in counsel’s representation generally will not rise to the

level of ineffectiveness” (People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565-566), here

defense counsel’s failures were “so serious, and resulted in such

prejudice to the defendant, that [s]he was denied a fair trial

thereby” (People v Alford, 33 AD3d 1014, 1016; see People v Turner, 5

NY3d 476, 480-481). 

In view of our decision, we do not address defendant’s remaining

contention.

Entered: February 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court