Case ID: ad3d_139/html/0982-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrew McElroy, Appellant.
    [30 NYS3d 578]
   Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered February 20, 2014, convicting him of assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, as reduced by an order of the same court, also dated February 20, 2014, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions that the evidence was legally insufficient to disprove his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt and to support his conviction of assault in the third degree are unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not raise the specific grounds that he now raises on appeal on his motion for a trial order of dismissal made after the close of the evidence (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt and establish the defendant’s guilt of assault in the third degree. 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 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the rejection of the justification defense and the verdict of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

In light of our determination on a related appeal by the People (see People v McElroy, 139 AD3d 980 [2016] [decided herewith]), the defendant’s remaining contention is academic.

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Dickerson and Connolly, JJ., concur.