Court Opinion

ID: 5831259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 22:25:29.82352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:27.850253
License: Public Domain

*960Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of robbery in the second degree under Penal Law § 160.10 (1) is preserved for appellate review {see CPL 470.05 [2]). However, 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 support the defendant’s convictions of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. 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 factfinder’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, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Mastro, J.P, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.