Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marcus Ambroise, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-11-18
Citations: 133 A.D.3d 770
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marcus Ambroise, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 770–771

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marcus Ambroise, Appellant.
[19 NYS3d 174]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered February 25, 2013, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second 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 the convictions of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.15 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Martinez, 116 AD3d 983 [2014]; People v Kearney, 25 AD3d 622 [2006]; People v Butler, 265 AD2d 487 [1999]). 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 of those crimes beyond, a reasonable doubt (see People v Callicut, 101 AD3d 1256, 1258 [2012]; People v Bryant, 36 AD3d 517 [2007]; People v Lewis, 277 AD2d 603 [2000]; People v Holmes, 260 AD2d 942, 943 [1999]). Contrary to the defendant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he intended to kill the victim, his intent may be inferred from his conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977]; People v Mutterperl, 97 AD3d 699 [2012]; People v Holmes, 260 AD2d at 943). Moreover, upon our independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.