Opinion
2014-12-31
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jason PHILLIPS, also known as Jason Hill, appellant.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (John J. Carmody, Steven A. Bender, and Jennifer Spencer of counsel), for respondent.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (John J. Carmody, Steven A. Bender, and Jennifer Spencer of counsel), for respondent.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., WILLIAM F. MASTRO, SHERI S. ROMAN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Warhit, J.), rendered May 24, 2011, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree (two counts) and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the identification evidence supporting his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 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, 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 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 factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). 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 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902). Contrary to the defendant's contention, his intent to rob the victim could be inferred from his conduct and the surrounding circumstances ( see People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296, 301–302, 392 N.Y.S.2d 412, 360 N.E.2d 1094; Matter of Andrew S., 177 A.D.2d 428, 428–429, 576 N.Y.S.2d 270).