Opinion
2021–02340 Ind. No. 1614/19
10-26-2022
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kevin SMALL, appellant.
Richard M. Langone, Garden City, NY, for appellant. Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and Kelly Gans of counsel), for respondent.
Richard M. Langone, Garden City, NY, for appellant.
Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and Kelly Gans of counsel), for respondent.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., LINDA CHRISTOPHER, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Howard E. Sturim, J.), rendered March 17, 2021, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, petit larceny, criminal possession of burglar's tools, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of crimes in connection with stealing clothing and goods from a Macy's department store in the Roosevelt Field Mall. The evidence at trial included surveillance video showing the theft, the testimony of a Macy's asset protection detective who witnessed the theft and recovered the stolen items from the defendant's bag, the defendant's written statement admitting the theft, and testimony from a Macy's assistant asset protection manager that the value of the stolen items exceeded $1,000.
The defendant's contention that there was legally insufficient evidence to support the conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree is without merit. 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 of grand larceny in the fourth degree 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, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt with respect to that count was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, the record reveals that the defendant's attorney provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).
DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, DOWLING and WARHIT, JJ., concur.