Opinion
2014-09-24
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. O'Neil WARD, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Warren S. Landau of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, and Marie–Claude P. Wrenn–Myers of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Warren S. Landau of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, and Marie–Claude P. Wrenn–Myers of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Morgenstern, J.), rendered March 7, 2012, convicting him of attempted assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree, attempted criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, and harassment in the second 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, since he failed to move for a trial order of dismissal based on the error he now claims ( seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946; People v. Gumbs, 58 A.D.3d 641, 641, 871 N.Y.S.2d 347; People v. Crawford, 38 A.D.3d 680, 681, 832 N.Y.S.2d 254). 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 beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt of attempted assault in the third degree ( see Matter of Tiffany D., 29 A.D.3d 693, 814 N.Y.S.2d 719; Matter of Eric C., 281 A.D.2d 543, 544, 722 N.Y.S.2d 61), menacing in the third degree ( see People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296, 392 N.Y.S.2d 412, 360 N.E.2d 1094; Matter of Monay W., 33 A.D.3d 809, 822 N.Y.S.2d 613), attempted criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation ( see People v. Wertman, 114 A.D.3d 1279, 980 N.Y.S.2d 688; People v. Carte, 113 A.D.3d 191, 976 N.Y.S.2d 594), and harassment in the second degree (People v. Rodriguez, 111 A.D.3d 856, 975 N.Y.S.2d 132; People v. Mollaie, 81 A.D.3d 1448, 916 N.Y.S.2d 726).
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 jury'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; 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).