Opinion
2017–06017 Ind. No. 1537/14
05-20-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ritchie S. HARIDAT, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Melissa Lee of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Joseph N. Ferdenzi, and Danielle S. Fenn of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Melissa Lee of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Joseph N. Ferdenzi, and Danielle S. Fenn of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, BETSY BARROS, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed from a determinate term of imprisonment of 12 years, to be followed by a 2½ year period of post-release supervision, to a determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years, to be followed by a 2½ year period of post-release supervision; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt 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 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see id. at 644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial due to improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is without merit. The prosecutor's comments either were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, constituted a fair response to defense counsel's summation, or otherwise did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109–110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564 ; People v. King, 144 A.D.3d 1176, 1176–1177, 41 N.Y.S.3d 751 ; People v. Nanand, 137 A.D.3d 945, 947–948, 26 N.Y.S.3d 585 ).
The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
BALKIN, J.P., COHEN, BARROS and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.