Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Juan Burgos, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2010-03-30
Citations: 71 A.D.3d 1157
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Burgos, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 1157–1158

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Burgos, Appellant.
[899 NYS2d 620]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered October 2, 2008, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]). In any event, 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 People v Norwood, 191 AD2d 519 [1993]; People v Griffith, 171 AD2d 678 [1991]). 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], cert denied 542 US 946 [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 remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Eng, JJ., concur.