Court Opinion

ID: 5766531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 17:24:09.873673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:41:39.933808
License: Public Domain

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered October 19, 2006, adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon a nonjury verdict finding him guilty of burglary in the second degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a minor, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence presented by the prosecution established all the elements of the crimes. In this regard, we note that the complainant identified the defendant at a lineup and during trial as the intruder.
*750In 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 trier of fact’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]). Skelos, J.E, Dillon, McCarthy and Eng, JJ., concur.