Court Opinion

ID: 5814085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 19:14:41.651748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:56.945502
License: Public Domain

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingram, J.), rendered December 5, 2008, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), 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 his convictions of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree 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 *856v 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]).
The defendant’s remaining contention regarding the fine imposed is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Rivera, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.