Opinion
2017–03853 Ind. No. 421/14
10-23-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Floyd MCNEIL, Appellant.
Thomas J. Butler, Melville, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Kevin C. King and Jared A. Chester of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas J. Butler, Melville, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Kevin C. King and Jared A. Chester of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jerald S. Carter, J.), rendered March 23, 2017, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions because the prosecution failed to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the robbery and related crimes. 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 identity as the perpetrator of the crimes of which he was convicted 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, 348–349, 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 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 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 he was deprived of his right to a fair trial as a result of purported improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant either raised only generalized objections, failed to request curative instructions or additional relief when the trial court sustained objections or provided curative instructions, or failed to timely move for a mistrial (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Morris, 157 A.D.3d 827, 66 N.Y.S.3d 644 ; People v. Grant, 152 A.D.3d 792, 59 N.Y.S.3d 433 ; People v. McMillan, 130 A.D.3d 651, 12 N.Y.S.3d 301 ). In any event, the challenged remarks were either fair response to arguments presented in summation by defense counsel, or fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v. Monteleone, 71 A.D.3d 790, 895 N.Y.S.2d 751 ; People v. Crawford, 54 A.D.3d 961, 863 N.Y.S.2d 830 ). To the extent that some of the prosecutor's remarks were improper, those remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and any other error in this regard was harmless (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ; People v. Bragg, 161 A.D.3d 998, 999, 77 N.Y.S.3d 435 ).
MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.