Opinion
2019–07239 Ind. No. 236/18
09-22-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Charles MURPHY, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, N.Y. (Priya Raghavan of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Matthew Harnisch of counsel; Emily Aguggia on the brief), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, N.Y. (Priya Raghavan of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Matthew Harnisch of counsel; Emily Aguggia on the brief), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Evelyn L. Braun, J.), rendered May 28, 2019, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged, inter alia, with attempted murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and reckless endangerment in the first degree in connection with a shooting incident in Queens. After a nonjury trial, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment in the first degree.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 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 shooter beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the complainant's testimony was not incredible as a matter of law, since it was not "manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory" ( People v. Guzman, 134 A.D.3d 852, 853, 20 N.Y.S.3d 612 ; see People v. Calabria, 3 N.Y.3d 80, 82, 783 N.Y.S.2d 321, 816 N.E.2d 1257 ).
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder'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 ). 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 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the complainant "never equivocated about [his] core testimony identifying [the] defendant as the person who shot [at him]" ( People v. Villa, 174 A.D.3d 438, 438–439, 103 N.Y.S.3d 425 ; see People v. Carmona, 185 A.D.3d 600, 602, 126 N.Y.S.3d 705 ), and the other evidence, including the surveillance videos, corroborated the complainant's identification testimony.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hooks, 148 A.D.3d 930, 931–932, 49 N.Y.S.3d 499 ; People v. Guerrero, 129 A.D.3d 1102, 1103, 12 N.Y.S.3d 272 ).
MASTRO, J.P., DUFFY, BRATHWAITE NELSON and DOWLING, JJ., concur.