Court Opinion

ID: 5950423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 06:19:03.17274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:47:39.190862
License: Public Domain

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered February 25, 2011, convicting him of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, possession of burglar’s tools, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, 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. 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 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]). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.