Opinion
2012-1344 W CR
09-18-2015
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Oscar Linares, Appellant.
PRESENT: :
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Thomas R. Daly, J.), rendered June 1, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant was charged in a misdemeanor information with unlawful assembly (Penal Law § 240.10), obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05), and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational trier of fact could have determined that defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). The trial testimony demonstrated that defendant had prevented a police officer from performing an official function, i.e., effectuating a lawful arrest of a third person, by means of physical interference (see Penal Law § 195.05; cf. People v Lupinacci, 191 AD2d 589 [1993]). Thus, contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Defendant's remaining contention pertaining to the City Court's instructions to the jury is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001, 1001-1002 [1996]; People v Smith, 276 AD2d 810 [2000]; People v Cahill, 220 AD2d 608 [1995]). In any event, defendant's argument lacks merit since, when viewed as a whole, the court's charge was proper (see People v Henderson, 259 AD2d 495 [1999]; People v Custodio, 243 AD2d 576 [1997]; Cahill, 220 AD2d 608).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Tolbert, J.P., Garguilo and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 18, 2015