Court Opinion

ID: 4441497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-09-25 19:10:09.824876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:27:02.239235
License: Public Domain

People v Allen (2019 NY Slip Op 06785)

People v Allen

2019 NY Slip Op 06785

Decided on September 25, 2019

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 September 25, 2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
SHERI S. ROMAN
ROBERT J. MILLER
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

2016-05182
 (Ind. No. 2958/13)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vMario M. Allen, appellant.

Randall D. Unger, Bayside, NY, for appellant.
John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Mariana Zelig of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gene Lopez, J.), rendered May 4, 2016, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), escape in the second degree, petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property (two counts), and resisting arrest, 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, 621), 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), 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 defendant's contention that certain testimony of a police witness regarding the complainant's show-up identification of the defendant constituted improper bolstering is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), and in any event, without merit (see People v Deverow, 153 AD3d 550, 551; People v Mendoza, 35 AD3d 507).
RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court