Court Opinion

ID: 3170952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-01-20 20:14:49.467276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:48.858180
License: Public Domain

People v Joseph (2016 NY Slip Op 00380)

People v Joseph

2016 NY Slip Op 00380

Decided on January 20, 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 January 20, 2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
BETSY BARROS, JJ.

2013-09959
 (Ind. No. 2359/11)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vRas Joseph, appellant.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Elizabeth Budnitz of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner, and Kahlil C. Williams [Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP], of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered January 25, 2013, convicting him of assault in the second degree and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court excused potential jurors based upon hardship without conducting a sufficient inquiry is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Valenko, 126 AD3d 1020; People v Boyd, 125 AD3d 992; People v Racks, 125 AD3d 693). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit (see People v Bruce, 130 AD3d 938, 938; People v Johnson, 116 AD3d 883, 883; People v Umana, 76 AD3d 1111, 1112; People v Toussaint, 40 AD3d 1017, 1017-1018).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to assault in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495; People v Vincent, 80 AD3d 633, 634).
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 at 348-349; People v Vincent, 80 AD3d at 634), 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 at 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to that crime was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633; People v Pelosi, 128 AD3d 733).
CHAMBERS, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN and BARROS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court