Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of grand larceny in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491-492 [2008]). In any event, viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621 [1983]), the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of the crimes of grand larceny in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to the counts of grand larceny in the first degree and scheme to defraud in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 646 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
