Court Opinion

ID: 9920712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 23:52:07.957395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:32:21.114071
License: Public Domain

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered November 14, 2003, convicting her of leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, insurance fraud in the fifth degree, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt on all *372charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).
Any error in failing to suppress physical evidence seized from the defendant’s automobile was, under the circumstances of this case, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]; People v Manino, 306 AD2d 541, 542 [2003]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Smith, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Spolzino, JJ., concur.