Court Opinion

ID: 5813981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 19:12:22.823507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:56.701390
License: Public Domain

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered December 1, 2008, convicting her of unauthorized practice of a profession, assault in the second degree (four counts), scheme to defraud in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the verdict of guilt was against *755the weight of the evidence. 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 [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 evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, viewed in totality as of the time of representation, reveal that trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see 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]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Angiolillo, J.P., Belen, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.