People v. BucalaPeople v. Bucala
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The only rational explanation for the long chain of circumstantial evidence is that defendant intentionally participated in the theft (see e.g. People v Bierenbaum, 301 AD2d 119, 131-140 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 626 [2003], cert denied 540 US 821 [2003]).
The challenged portion of the People‘s summation drew reasonable inferences from the evidence and was responsive to the defense summation (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]).
Defendant was not deprived of her right to testify before the grand jury. The record supports the motion court‘s finding that the People accorded defendant a reasonable opportunity to testify, and that her failure to do so resulted from her attorney‘s lack of cooperation in scheduling an appearance (see People v Patterson, 189 AD2d 733 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 975 [1993]).
Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.