Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Evan Potts, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-10-22
Citations: 121 A.D.3d 1022
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Evan Potts, Appellant.
Judges: Mastro, J.P, Sgroi, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 1022–1023

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Evan Potts, Appellant.
[993 NYS2d 779]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Grella, J.), rendered October 4, 2011, convicting him of criminally negligent homicide, upon a jury verdict, 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, 621 [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]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. The record indicates that, under the New York standard, defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709 [1988]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]). Moreover, the defendant was not deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel under the federal standard (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687 [1984]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Mastro, J.P, Sgroi, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.