Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jocelyn Allrich, Also Known as Jo-Jo Allrich, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-06-07
Citations: 151 A.D.3d 733
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jocelyn Allrich, Also Known as Jo-Jo Allrich, Appellant.
Judges: Leventhal, J.P., Hinds-Radix, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 151
Pages: 733–734

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jocelyn Allrich, Also Known as Jo-Jo Allrich, Appellant.
[53 NYS3d 547]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered March 21, 2014, convicting her of scheme to defraud in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree (six counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecution established by a preponderance of the evidence that venue was proper in Kings County (see CPL 20.40 [1]; People v Greenberg, 89 NY2d 553, 555-556 [1997]; People v Ribowsky, 77 NY2d 284, 291-292 [1991]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish her guilt is partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
Leventhal, J.P., Hinds-Radix, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.