Opinion
2016–03720 Ind. No. 7388/13
05-06-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Bertrand HENRY, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Hannah Kon of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Hannah Kon of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that all terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). 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 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, 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 ).
The defendant's contention that the indictment failed to provide him with fair notice of the charges is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Iannone , 45 N.Y.2d 589, 600, 412 N.Y.S.2d 110, 384 N.E.2d 656 ; People v. Lewis , 283 A.D.2d 442, 724 N.Y.S.2d 623 ). In any event, the time periods alleged in the indictment as to when the subject crimes occurred were sufficiently specific to provide the defendant with fair notice of the charges (see People v. Thomas , 34 N.Y.3d 545, 569–70, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 08545, *10 ; Matter of Qin Fen Wang v. Chee Kiang Foo , 171 A.D.3d 1187, 1188, 99 N.Y.S.3d 444 ; People v. Cruz , 127 A.D.3d 987, 6 N.Y.S.3d 644 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, testimony of the complainant's mother as to when the complainant first reported the defendant's conduct was properly admitted for the relevant, nonhearsay purpose of completing the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest (see People v. Israel , 161 A.D.3d 1195, 74 N.Y.S.3d 510 ; People v. Jimenez , 148 A.D.3d 1054, 1055, 50 N.Y.S.3d 435 ; People v. Genao , 145 A.D.3d 739, 41 N.Y.S.3d 901 ).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the admission into evidence of a particular recorded conversation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ), and, in any event, without merit.
The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.