Opinion
December 2, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, and the matters are remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The defendants' convictions arise from an undercover police investigation of several licensed vehicle dismantlers in Queens (see, People v Agnello, 178 A.D.2d 414 [decided herewith]).
The charges of falsifying business records concern the defendants' entries or lack of entries with respect to sales taxes upon various receipts for purchases of automobile parts by undercover officers. On appeal, the defendants claim that the People failed to establish that the receipts constituted "business records", that the court's instructions to the jury as to the definition of the term "business record" were erroneous, and that the evidence was neither legally nor factually sufficient to support their convictions. We disagree.
Penal Law § 175.00 (2) defines a business record as "any writing or article * * * kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity". Inasmuch as a duty is imposed on the defendants by the New York State Tax Law to maintain a true copy of each sales invoice for sales tax purposes (Tax Law § 1135 [a] [1]), and the trial evidence supported the conclusion that the defendants retained carbon copies of the receipts given to customers for record-keeping purposes, we conclude that the receipts constituted business records within the meaning of the statute (see, People v Davis, 49 N.Y.2d 910; People v Weinfeld, 65 A.D.2d 911). Moreover, the court's instruction to the jury in this respect was proper (see, 2 CJI[NY] PL 175.05).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
We have considered the defendants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.