Opinion
2015-11178 Ind. No. 3017/14
10-09-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Yevhen MUSAYELYAN, appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Svetlana M. Kornfeind of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A. Grob, and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP [Yuliya Neverova ], of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Svetlana M. Kornfeind of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A. Grob, and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP [Yuliya Neverova ], of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Evelyn Laporte, J.), rendered October 1, 2015, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3), reckless driving, and violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
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 guilt of reckless driving 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 factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Romero , 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to that count was not against the weight of the evidence (see id. at 644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
Since the evidence adduced to establish the elements of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3) was supported by the direct testimony of the arresting police officers, a circumstantial evidence charge was not required (see People v. Hardy , 26 N.Y.3d 245, 249, 22 N.Y.S.3d 377, 43 N.E.3d 734 ; People v. Roldan , 88 N.Y.2d 826, 827, 643 N.Y.S.2d 960, 666 N.E.2d 553 ; People v. Daddona , 81 N.Y.2d 990, 992, 599 N.Y.S.2d 530, 615 N.E.2d 1014 ; People v. Duffin , 28 Misc.3d 126[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 51174[U], 2010 WL 2679928 [App. Term, 9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2010] ).
RIVERA, J.P., LASALLE, BARROS and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.