Opinion
2010-07244 Ind. No. 2195/09.
03-23-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Haley MASSILLON, appellant.
Carol E. Castillo, E. Setauket, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.
Carol E. Castillo, E. Setauket, N.Y., for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), rendered October 5, 2010, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is only partially preserved for appellate review (see People v. Krut, 133 A.D.3d 781, 783, 21 N.Y.S.3d 106). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.155; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 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 their 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, 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, 644–645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the County Court failed to adequately explore his waiver of an alleged conflict of interest arising from the past representation of the complainant by the defendant's trial attorney's office, the Legal Aid Society, in an unrelated criminal matter (see People v. Thomas, 98 A.D.3d 594, 595, 949 N.Y.S.2d 634).
The defendant's remaining contentions, concerning certain evidentiary rulings, are largely unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, either are without merit or constitute harmless error.
BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, COHEN and MALTESE, JJ., concur.