From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mema

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 16, 2014
116 A.D.3d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-04-16

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Patrick MEMA, appellant.

Geanine Towers, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Paul M. Tarr of counsel), for respondent.


Geanine Towers, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Paul M. Tarr of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (DiDomenico, J.), rendered January 7, 2013, convicting him of menacing in the third degree, harassment in the second degree, and attempted menacing in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of menacing in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19–21, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919). In any event, 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 menacing in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder'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,cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;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 as to all of the crimes of which the defendant was convicted 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 was not denied the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). RIVERA, J.P., LOTT, MILLER and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Mema

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 16, 2014
116 A.D.3d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

People v. Mema

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Patrick MEMA, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 16, 2014

Citations

116 A.D.3d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
116 A.D.3d 884
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2615