Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eusebio Guzman, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-12-24
Citations: 123 A.D.3d 1054
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eusebio Guzman, Appellant.
Judges: Rivera, J.P., Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 1054–1055

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eusebio Guzman, Appellant.
[997 NYS2d 319]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered March 21, 2012, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution or the New York Constitution (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
Rivera, J.P., Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.