Opinion
03-08-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Silvio PEREZ, appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Allen Fallek of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Ross of counsel; Jenna Tersteegen on the brief), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Allen Fallek of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Ross of counsel; Jenna Tersteegen on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Morgenstern, J.), rendered August 6, 2012, convicting him of attempted assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree, and harassment in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ). 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 beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt of attempted assault in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00[1] ; see People v. Ward, 120 A.D.3d 1440, 1440–1441, 992 N.Y.S.2d 571 ), menacing in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.15 ; see Matter of Monay W., 33 A.D.3d 809, 810, 822 N.Y.S.2d 613 ), and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26[1] ; see People v. Rodriguez, 111 A.D.3d 856, 858, 975 N.Y.S.2d 132 ). 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. 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 as to those crimes was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 643–644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, HINDS–RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.