Court Opinion

ID: 5869560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 01:43:27.069229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:44:40.268609
License: Public Domain

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that her conviction of reckless endangerment in the first degree (see Penal Law § 120.25) is not supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt of reckless endangerment in the first degree 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, 348 [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 *699the verdict of guilt as to reckless endangerment in the first degree 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, 85-86 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.