Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel Samaroo, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-03-30
Citations: 137 A.D.3d 1308
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Samaroo, Appellant.
Judges: Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Barros, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 1308–1309

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Samaroo, Appellant.
[27 NYS3d 391]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered November 14, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), 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, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 160.10 [1], [2] [a]; People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]; People v Walters, 69 AD3d 768, 768-769 [2010]). 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, 410 [2004]). 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, 644 [2006]).
In addition, the trial court properly denied the defendant's request for a missing witness charge, as there was no evidence that the uncalled witnesses would provide noncumulative testimony (see People v Edwards, 14 NY3d 733, 735 [2010]; People v Stewart, 96 AD3d 880, 881 [2012]).
Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Barros, JJ., concur.