Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Yoel Silber, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-09-13
Citations: 153 A.D.3d 1287
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Yoel Silber, Appellant.
Judges: Rivera, J.R, Dillon, Connolly and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 153
Pages: 1287–1288

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Yoel Silber, Appellant.
[59 NYS3d 708]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered June 10, 2014, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and issuing a bad check (10 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant deposited 10 checks drawn on business checking accounts at Citibank into a business checking account at Provident Bank and withdrew certain funds made available by the deposits. The deposited checks were returned unpaid by Citibank due to insufficient funds in the defendant's accounts. The defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the fourth degree and 10 counts of issuing a bad check.
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 § 155.05 [1]; 155.30 [1]; 190.05 [1]; 190.10 [1], [2]). 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 their 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]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
Rivera, J.R, Dillon, Connolly and Iannacci, JJ., concur.