Opinion
2013-05-8
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christopher SWEENEY, appellant.
Steven Flaumenhaft, West Sayville, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Flaumenhaft, West Sayville, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), rendered February 26, 2008, convicting him of unlawful surveillance in the second degree (three counts), endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 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 ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 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, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053,cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;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).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should not have issued an order of protection in favor of his children is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to object to the order of protection at sentencing or move to amend the order on this ground ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; see also People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 316–318, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13;People v. Khan, 101 A.D.3d 903, 955 N.Y.S.2d 409;People v. Remington, 90 A.D.3d 678, 679, 933 N.Y.S.2d 891;People v. Foster, 87 A.D.3d 299, 304, 927 N.Y.S.2d 92;People v. Decker, 77 A.D.3d 675, 908 N.Y.S.2d 361;People v. Johnson, 16 A.D.3d 521, 522, 790 N.Y.S.2d 719).