Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rafael Zarzuela, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-12-31
Citations: 123 A.D.3d 1155
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafael Zarzuela, Appellant.
Judges: Balkin, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 1155–1156

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafael Zarzuela, Appellant.
[997 NYS2d 639]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Margulis, J.), rendered October 4, 2012, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [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 opportunity of the finder of fact 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, the People established a sufficient foundation to admit into evidence recorded telephone calls the defendant made while incarcerated (see People v Collins, 90 AD3d 1069, 1069 [2011]; see also People v Vasser, 97 AD3d 767, 768 [2012]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Balkin, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.