Opinion
No. 2008-10179.
June 28, 2011.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.), rendered October 10, 2008, convicting him of criminal trespass in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Covello, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Miller, JJ.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-20). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see generally Matter of Jeffery M., 309 AD2d 937, 938; cf. Matter of Paul K, 244 AD2d 489, 490).
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), 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 NY3d 383, 410, cert denied 542 US 946; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The defendant further contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's tactic of asking him on cross-examination whether he believed two of the prosecution's police witnesses were lying. Although we have repeatedly disapproved of this type of questioning ( see e.g. People v Berrios, 298 AD2d 597; People v Webb, 68 AD2d 331, 333; People v Yant, 75 AD2d 653, 653), any error committed here was harmless as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and no significant probability that the impropriety in the prosecutor's cross-examination affected the verdict ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242; People v Gonzalez, 15 AD3d 594, 594-595; People v Lawrence, 4 AD3d 436, 437; People v McGlone, 222 AD2d 529; People v Calada, 154 AD2d 700, 700).