Opinion
2017–10825 Ind. No. 1408/16
07-24-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jose GUERRERO, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Stephanie Sonsino of counsel), for appellant. John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Katherine A. Triffon of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Stephanie Sonsino of counsel), for appellant.
John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Katherine A. Triffon of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Stephanie Zaro, J.), rendered July 26, 2017, as amended August 7, 2017, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and criminal mischief in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 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 (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 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, 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 ).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor made improper comments during his summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Herring, 119 A.D.3d 958, 989 N.Y.S.2d 883 ; People v. Alleyne, 114 A.D.3d 804, 979 N.Y.S.2d 845 ; People v. Morris, 2 A.D.3d 652, 768 N.Y.S.2d 379 ; People v. McHarris, 297 A.D.2d 824, 748 N.Y.S.2d 57 ). In any event, the challenged comments constituted fair response to the defense's summation, fair comment on the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, or were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible during summation (see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 400, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885 ; People v. Saunders, 127 A.D.3d 1111, 6 N.Y.S.3d 673 ; People v. Dobbins, 123 A.D.3d 1140, 997 N.Y.S.2d 501 ).
RIVERA, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, LASALLE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.