Opinion
2008–00972 2008–03700 Ind. No. 1752/04
08-22-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jalah KNIGHT, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY, for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Kew Gardens, and Danielle M. O'Boyle of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY, for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Kew Gardens, and Danielle M. O'Boyle of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Richard L. Buchter, J.), rendered January 17, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a resentence of the same court imposed March 20, 2008.
ORDERED that the judgment and the resentence are 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 support the defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. 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, 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 of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Romero , 7 N.Y.3d 633, 643, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, to the extent the jury chose to credit testimony that established that the defendant's conduct was not consistent with temporary and innocent possession of a firearm, there is no basis to disturb that determination (see People v. Banks , 76 N.Y.2d 799, 800–801, 559 N.Y.S.2d 959, 559 N.E.2d 653 ; People v. Boykin , 159 A.D.3d 917, 70 N.Y.S.3d 85 ; People v. Rossi , 99 A.D.3d 947, 951–952, 952 N.Y.S.2d 285, affd 24 N.Y.3d 968, 995 N.Y.S.2d 692, 20 N.E.3d 637 ; People v. Sheehan , 41 A.D.3d 335, 838 N.Y.S.2d 83 ).
BALKIN, J.P., SGROI, MALTESE and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.