Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Vilair FONVIL, appellant.
Decided: April 28, 2021
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
Charles E. Holster III, Garden City, NY, for appellant. Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Tina L. Guccione of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kevin F. Russo, J.), rendered September 17, 2018, convicting him of corrupting the government in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree as a crime of public corruption, money laundering in the fourth degree, and receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 530.45(6).
The defendant, a trustee of the Village of Spring Valley, was charged with corrupting the government in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree as a crime of public corruption, money laundering in the fourth degree, and receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree in connection with the administration of a summer camp program for children in the summer of 2016. Following a nonjury trial, the defendant was convicted of all charges. The defendant appeals.
The County Court properly granted the People's application to amend count 1 of the indictment. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the amendment did not change the theory of the People's case or cure a legal insufficiency of the factual allegations (see CPL 200.70; see generally People v. Elie, 110 A.D.3d 1003, 1005, 973 N.Y.S.2d 358; People v. Luna, 270 A.D.2d 501, 502, 706 N.Y.S.2d 335). The relevant count of the indictment specifically referred to the Penal Law section under which the defendant was being charged and, thus, “constitute[d] an expression of all the elements of the crime required for conviction” (People v. Dudley, 289 A.D.2d 503, 504, 736 N.Y.S.2d 48; see People v. Smith, 98 A.D.3d 533, 533–534, 949 N.Y.S.2d 190).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People 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 establish the defendant's guilt of the crimes of which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on each of those counts was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15).
RIVERA, J.P., DUFFY, IANNACCI and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.