Opinion
No. 2020-02440 Ind. No. 71/19
03-01-2023
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Otman Siad, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Anna Jouravleva of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Theresa Yuan of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Anna Jouravleva of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Theresa Yuan of counsel), for respondent.
BETSY BARROS, J.P,. REINALDO E. RIVERA, LARA J. GENOVESI, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (John F. Zoll, J.), rendered January 31, 2020,convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted, after a nonjury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree based upon evidence that he stole several bottles of perfume from a Macy's store.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the value of the stolen property exceeded $1,000 (see Penal Law §§ 155.20[1]; 155.30[1]; People v Small, 209 A.D.3d 1043, 1044; People v Oliver, 186 A.D.3d 1261, 1262; People v Dickerson, 168 A.D.3d 971, 971-972). 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), 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; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). 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).
BARROS, J.P., RIVERA, GENOVESI and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.