Court Opinion

ID: 5126865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-11-17 20:09:41.994212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:27.931498
License: Public Domain

People v Bastien (2021 NY Slip Op 06365)

People v Bastien

2021 NY Slip Op 06365

Decided on November 17, 2021

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 17, 2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P.
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

2016-01380
 (Ind. No. 1581/14)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vGerard Bastien, appellant.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Caitlyn Carpenter of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel; Emily Aguggia on the memorandum), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Michael Aloise, J.), rendered January 25, 2016, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief 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 underlying his conviction of burglary in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of burglary in the second degree 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, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on the count of burglary in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The defendant's contention that his trial counsel was ineffective is without merit (see People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287; People v Lane, 189 AD3d 1265, 1267; People v Crawford, 112 AD3d 734, 735).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
AUSTIN, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Acting Clerk of the Court