Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Humberto Arboleda, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2012-03-20
Citations: 93 A.D.3d 805
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Humberto Arboleda, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 805–805

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Humberto Arboleda, Appellant.
[939 NYS2d 881]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered March 16, 2010, convicting him of assault in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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 of assault in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the second 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 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [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]).
Furthermore, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The defendant's contention regarding the allegedly improper admission of the victim's statement to a police officer is without merit (see Davis v Washington, 547 US 813, 822 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.E, Florio, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.