Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Steven A. Sebastopoli, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-12-24
Citations: 123 A.D.3d 1063
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven A. Sebastopoli, Appellant.
Judges: Rivera, J.P., Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ, concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 1063–1064

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven A. Sebastopoli, Appellant.
[997 NYS2d 328]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Condon, J.), rendered June 8, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the third degree (three counts) and attempted robbery in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of attempted robbery in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Ervin, 118 AD3d 910 [2014]). 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 the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of that count 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 factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to that count was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed upon the defendant's conviction of attempted robbery in the first degree was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Rivera, J.P., Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ, concur.