Opinion
2018–05485, 2018–05486 Ind. Nos. 8/16, 29/17
11-03-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Anthony R. MAGLIOCCO, appellant.
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Richard E. Mischel of counsel), for appellant. Robert V. Tendy, District Attorney, Carmel, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Richard E. Mischel of counsel), for appellant.
Robert V. Tendy, District Attorney, Carmel, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ANGELA G. IANNACCI, WILLIAM G. FORD, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Putnam County (James T. Rooney, J.), both rendered April 25, 2018, convicting him of burglary in the first degree under Indictment No. 8/16, and bail jumping in the second degree under Indictment No. 29/17, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments 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 establish the defendant's guilt of burglary in the first degree 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, 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 on this count 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 County Court failed to properly instruct the jury on the elements of burglary in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Guzman, 138 A.D.3d 1140, 31 N.Y.S.3d 146 ) and, in any event, without merit. The court's charge, taken as a whole, conveyed to the jury the correct legal principles to be applied in arriving at its decision (see People v. Medina, 18 N.Y.3d 98, 104, 936 N.Y.S.2d 608, 960 N.E.2d 377 ).
The sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
RIVERA, J.P., IANNACCI, FORD and DOWLING, JJ., concur.