Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Reinhardtsen, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-07-30
Citations: 119 A.D.3d 961
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Reinhardtsen, Appellant.
Judges: Skelos, J.P, Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 961–961

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Reinhardtsen, Appellant.
[989 NYS2d 897]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), rendered January 5, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894 [2000]). 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 establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 140.25 [2]). 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 demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86 [1982]).
Skelos, J.P, Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.