Opinion
2012-12-12
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Mohamed KHAN, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John Gemmill of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Rebecca Height of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John Gemmill of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Rebecca Height of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered May 11, 2010, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). 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 ( seeCPL 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,cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;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 duration of the orders of protection issued against him exceeded the maximum permissible period is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant did not raise this issue at sentencing or move to amend the final orders of protection on this ground ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Nieves, 2 N.Y.3d 310, 316–318, 778 N.Y.S.2d 751, 811 N.E.2d 13;People v. Remington, 90 A.D.3d 678, 679, 933 N.Y.S.2d 891;People v. Peterkin, 27 A.D.3d 666, 667, 815 N.Y.S.2d 103).