Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Keegan, J.), rendered February 20, 1992, upon a verdict convicting defendant of two counts of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree.
On August 31, 1989, defendant, as president of 342 Management Corporation (hereinafter 342MC), entered into a lease with P&JG Enterprises (hereinafter P&JG), a corporation which, inter alia, managed the financial affairs of the Thruway House, a hotel located in the City of Albany (hereinafter the hotel). The lease provided that 342MC would assume management of the hotel on September 1, 1989, in exchange for P&JG receiving a lump-sum payment as well as 20% of the gross revenue from the operation of the hotel. Although the lease specifically provided that P&JG was entitled to payments for services rendered at the hotel prior to September 1, 1989 and that 342MC was entitled only to payments for services provided at the hotel after that date, defendant informed the hotel staff that all payments received by the hotel were to be deposited in 342MC’s account; he also fired the hotel bookkeeper who had been authorized to, inter alia, allocate payments between P&JG and 342MC.
When questioned on October 30, 1989 by Jagadish Garg, vice-president of P&JG, defendant denied receipt of the checks. However, upon examining the hotel’s ledger in November 1989, Garg discovered that these checks had in fact been received on October 28, 1989. Defendant was subsequently indicted in Albany County on two counts of grand larceny in the third degree. Defendant thereafter moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that venue was not proper in Albany County. Defendant’s motion was denied. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted on both counts of grand larceny in the third degree and sentenced to two concurrent terms of imprisonment of 2Vs to 7 years. Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that the evidence presented at the trial was insufficient to demonstrate that he had the requisite intent to be found guilty of grand larceny in the third degree. He claims that he did not know that the checks in question were payments for business conducted at the hotel prior to September 1, 1989, and therefore that he did not know that they belonged to P&JG.
In order to convict defendant of grand larceny in the third degree, the People must present sufficient evidence to establish that defendant wrongfully deprived an owner of property valued at more than $3,000 with the specific intent to permanently withhold such property (see, Penal Law § 155.05 [1]; § 155.35; People v Hoyt, 92 AD2d 1079). Evidence presented at the trial demonstrated that defendant (1) was aware of the provisions of the August 31, 1989 lease which limited 342MC to payments for services rendered after September 1, 1989, (2) had, on previous occasions, erroneously deposited funds on behalf of 342MC that were the property of P&JG according to the terms of the lease, (3) fired the bookkeeper who was responsible for allocating, pursuant to the lease, funds re
Defendant’s next contention is that County Court committed reversible error by allowing the People to inquire, on cross-examination, as to defendant’s prior conviction of falsifying business records. As this prior conviction occurred just three months prior to the trial, it clearly had bearing upon defendant’s credibility and his willingness to place his own interests above those of society (see, People v Arroyo, 194 AD2d 406, 407, lv denied 82 NY2d 751). The fact that defendant’s prior conviction may have involved conduct similar to the conduct alleged in the instant action does not automatically bar its use for impeachment purposes (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292; People v Arroyo, supra). Additionally, by limiting questioning as to "the fact of the prior conviction without inquiry concerning the underlying occurrence” (People v Baird, 167 AD2d 693, 694, lv denied 77 NY2d 903), County Court properly allowed the People to cross-examine defendant regarding his prior conviction (see, People v Ashley, 145 AD2d 782, 782-783). Moreover, defendant, in failing to object to County Court’s ruling at the close of the Sandoval hearing and by his failure to object to the People’s Sandoval inquiry during cross-examination, has failed to properly preserve this issue for appellate review (see, People v Valenti, 199 AD2d 617, 618, lv denied 83 NY2d 811; see also, CPL 470.05 [2]).
Defendant further contends that County Court committed error by denying his request to consolidate the two counts of grand larceny in the third degree and that the People’s prosecution of defendant on both of these counts placed him in double jeopardy. A search of relevant case law demonstrates a complete lack of authority to support the proposition that the failure to consolidate two counts of an indictment results in double jeopardy. Moreover, defendant was only prosecuted once. As to the appropriateness of County Court’s refusal to
Defendant further argues that the indictment must be dismissed because Albany County was not the proper venue for trial. CPL 20.40 states, in pertinent part, as follows: "A person may be convicted in an appropriate criminal court of a particular county, of an offense * * * committed either by his own conduct or by the conduct of another for which he is legally accountable pursuant to section 20.00 of the penal law, when * * * [c]onduct occurred within such county sufficient to establish * * * [a]n element of such offense” (CPL 20.40 [1] [a]). Penal Law § 20.00 provides that "[w]hen one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offense, another person is criminally liable for such conduct when * * * he * * * requests [or] commands * * * such person to engage in such conduct” (Penal Law § 20.00). As the comanager of the hotel testified that, in October 1989, defendant directed him to transport the checks in question from Albany County to Jefferson County, defendant is "criminally liable for such conduct” within the meaning of Penal Law § 20.00. Because the comanager’s actions, committed within Albany County, constituted a "tak[ing], obtaining] or withholding] [of] such property” (Penal Law § 155.05 [1]) within the scope of Penal Law § 155.35, venue was proper in Albany County (see, CPL 20.40 [1] [a]; Matter of Silvestro v Kavanagh, 98 AD2d 833, 834, lv denied 61 NY2d 603).
Defendant further contends that he was denied effective
Finally, defendant’s contention that his sentence was unduly harsh is without merit. County Court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. In light of the facts in this case, defendant’s prior criminal record of misdemeanor larceny convictions and the impact of his criminal acts on his victims, the sentence imposed is fully justified.
Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.