Opinion
2021-06365 Ind. 1581/14
11-17-2021
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Gerard Bastien, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Caitlyn Carpenter of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel; Emily Aguggia on the memorandum), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Caitlyn Carpenter of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel; Emily Aguggia on the memorandum), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Michael Aloise, J.), rendered January 25, 2016, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction of burglary in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of burglary in the second 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 N.Y.3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on the count of burglary in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633).
The defendant's contention that his trial counsel was ineffective is without merit (see People v Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 287; People v Lane, 189 A.D.3d 1265, 1267; People v Crawford, 112 A.D.3d 734, 735).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
AUSTIN, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.