Opinion
2019–03622 Ind. No. 17–01240
03-03-2021
Clare J. Degnan, White Plains, N.Y. (Debra A. Cassidy of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Brian R. Pouliot and William C. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.
Clare J. Degnan, White Plains, N.Y. (Debra A. Cassidy of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Brian R. Pouliot and William C. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Susan Cacace, J.), rendered February 19, 2019, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's for-cause challenge to a prospective juror. That prospective juror unequivocally stated that he would be impartial (see People v. Brims, 145 A.D.3d 1025, 45 N.Y.S.3d 488 ).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) was improper in that it allowed inquiry as to many of his prior convictions spanning many years is without merit. The court's decision, which permitted inquiry into several but certainly not all of the defendant's prior convictions, for the most part without reference to the underlying acts, does not indicate any failure by the court to balance the relevant factors (see People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472 ; People v. Williams, 213 A.D.2d 689, 689, 624 N.Y.S.2d 216 ). Here, the court properly balanced the appropriate factors in reaching its determination.
The defendant contends that his convictions are against the weight of the evidence. 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, 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 remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.
MASTRO, A.P.J., HINDS–RADIX, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.