Court Opinion

ID: 4341421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-11-14 20:48:09.014587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:28.641669
License: Public Domain

People v Hernandez (2018 NY Slip Op 07750)

People v Hernandez

2018 NY Slip Op 07750

Decided on November 14, 2018

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 November 14, 2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
MARK C. DILLON
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2014-07241
 (Ind. No. 3204/12)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vJuan Hernandez, appellant.

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Cynthia Colt of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Steven A. Knopf, J.), rendered July 23, 2014, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, 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 identity as the perpetrator of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Ayala, 121 AD3d 1124, 1125; People v Baksh, 43 AD3d 1072, 1073). 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, 348-349), 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, 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 remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v James, 99 NY2d 264, 272), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
RIVERA, J.P., DILLON, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court