Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Davis Mata, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-05-24
Citations: 150 A.D.3d 1149
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Davis Mata, Appellant.
Judges: Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 150
Pages: 1149–1149

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Davis Mata, Appellant.
[52 NYS3d 641]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered August 13, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and false per-sonation, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). 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 it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of robbery in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt, including the element of larcenous intent (see People v Knox, 137 AD3d 1330, 1331 [2016]; Matter of Merriel B., 9 AD3d 256 [2004]; Matter of Eliazar G., 4 AD3d 157 [2004]). Likewise, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt, including the element that the complainant suffered a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 120.00 and 10.00 (9) (see Matter of Ashley M., 35 AD3d 612 [2006]). Moreover, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those crimes was not against the weight of the evidence.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's questioning of witnesses deprived him of a fair trial and due process is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 888 [1982]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Melendez, 31 AD3d 186 [2006]; People v Walker, 182 AD2d 731 [1992]).
Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.