Court Opinion

ID: 5841969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 23:21:09.719591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:48.031000
License: Public Domain

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 jury’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]).
Defense counsel provided meaningful representation under both the state and federal constitutional standards (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 156 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.E, Eng, Lott and Sgroi, JJ, concur.