Court Opinion

ID: 4109772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-12-21 21:11:18.347218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:54:16.220325
License: Public Domain

People v Yorke (2016 NY Slip Op 08548)

People v Yorke

2016 NY Slip Op 08548

Decided on December 21, 2016

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 December 21, 2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
SANDRA L. SGROI
HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

2014-04224
 (Ind. No. 438/12)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vBarry Yorke, appellant.

Laurette Mulry, Riverhead, NY (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Michael J. Brennan of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ambro, J.), rendered April 1, 2014, convicting him of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, 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), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349). 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), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The sentence imposed, including the imposition of consecutive sentences for counts one and three, was not harsh or excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and LASALLE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court