Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Peter Sprauve, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-03-22
Citations: 148 A.D.3d 1060
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter Sprauve, Appellant.
Judges: Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 1060–1060

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter Sprauve, Appellant.
[48 NYS3d 621]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered July 22, 2015, convicting him of tampering with physical evidence, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and assault in the third 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 not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt 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 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 [1982]).
Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.