From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Samaroo

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 30, 2016
137 A.D.3d 1308 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

03-30-2016

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Daniel SAMAROO, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Samuel Brown of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Jeannette Lifschitz, and Denise A. Biderman of counsel), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Samuel Brown of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Jeannette Lifschitz, and Denise A. Biderman of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered November 14, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, 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, 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 beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 160.10[1], [2][a]; People v. Chiddick, 8 N.Y.3d 445, 447, 834 N.Y.S.2d 710, 866 N.E.2d 1039; People v. Walters, 69 A.D.3d 768, 768–769, 894 N.Y.S.2d 68). 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, 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). 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, 644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

In addition, the trial court properly denied the defendant's request for a missing witness charge, as there was no evidence that the uncalled witnesses would provide noncumulative testimony (see People v. Edwards, 14 N.Y.3d 733, 735, 899 N.Y.S.2d 65, 925 N.E.2d 867; People v. Stewart, 96 A.D.3d 880, 881, 946 N.Y.S.2d 478).

MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Samaroo

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 30, 2016
137 A.D.3d 1308 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Samaroo

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Daniel SAMAROO, appellant.

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

Date published: Mar 30, 2016

Citations

137 A.D.3d 1308 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
137 A.D.3d 1308
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 2385

Citing Cases

People v. Valente

Here, defendant, as the proponent of the missing witness charge, failed to meet her initial burden…

People v. Marconi

e granted a request for a missing witness charge here: (1) the uncalled witness had knowledge of an issue…