Opinion
2018-10803 Ind. 919/17
06-30-2021
The People, etc., respondent, v. Torrey Brown, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Kathleen Whooley of counsel; Daniel Chasin, Sara Lerner, and Nosson Sternbach on the brief), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Russell Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.
Argued - May 18, 2021
D66820 Y/htr
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Kathleen Whooley of counsel; Daniel Chasin, Sara Lerner, and Nosson Sternbach on the brief), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Russell Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ira H. Margulis, J.), rendered August 13, 2018, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), 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 CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348), 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; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Upon review of 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, 644-645).
The defendant's challenge to the Supreme Court's charge to the jury is without merit. The charge as given properly stated the applicable legal principles and did not confuse or mislead the jury (see CPL 300.10[2]; People v. Samuels, 99 N.Y.2d 20, 25-26; People v. Gonsalez, 144 A.D.3d 841, 842).
The defendant's contention that his trial counsel was ineffective is without merit (see People v. McGee, 2 0 NY3d 513, 518; People v. Maschoun, 186 A.D.3d 1402, 1404).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event , without merit.
DUFFY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, CHRISTOPHER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.