Court Opinion

ID: 5840087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 22:52:34.248624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:44.167029
License: Public Domain

*959The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by virtue of his attorney’s failure to assert certain arguments in challenging the People’s motion to consolidate the indictments is without merit. The evidence established that the defendant’s counsel provided meaningful representation in opposing the motion (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]).
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]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Dillon, J.P, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Hall, JJ., concur.