Opinion
2017–02565 Ind. No. 2200–15
06-05-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Harrison Ford PIERRE–LOUIS, Appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Nicole L. Gallo and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Nicole L. Gallo and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Richard Ambro, J.), rendered December 12, 2016, convicting him of assault in the second degree and petit larceny, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review, as defense counsel made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal based upon the People's alleged failure to make out a prima facie case (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins , 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Wares , 165 A.D.3d 1182, 1182, 86 N.Y.S.3d 546 ). In any event, 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, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant's guilt of petit larceny (see Penal Law § 155.25 ) and assault in the second degree, including that the defendant unjustifiably caused one of the complainants to sustain a "physical injury" within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9) (see Penal Law § 120.05[2] ; People v. Kenner , 77 A.D.3d 853, 853–854, 909 N.Y.S.2d 545 ; People v. Blocker , 23 A.D.3d 575, 575, 806 N.Y.S.2d 640 ; People v. Comer , 137 A.D.2d 545, 546, 524 N.Y.S.2d 286, affd 73 N.Y.2d 955, 540 N.Y.S.2d 997, 538 N.E.2d 349 ).
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 ; 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 at 644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, LASALLE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.