Opinion
01-21-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Lyndon THORMAN, appellant.
Steven G. Williams, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, and Avshalom Yotam of counsel), for respondent.
Steven G. Williams, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, and Avshalom Yotam of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered December 19, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of assault in the second degree and burglary in the first degree 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 ; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 ). 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 prove the defendant's guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 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, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we find that the verdict of guilt 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's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is also unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Clemente, 84 A.D.3d 829, 922 N.Y.S.2d 193 ; People v. Charles, 57 A.D.3d 556, 869 N.Y.S.2d 564 ; People v. Gill, 54 A.D.3d 965, 966, 864 N.Y.S.2d 135 ; People v. Robbins, 48 A.D.3d 711, 850 N.Y.S.2d 912 ). In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, or responsive to the defense counsel's summation (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109–110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564 ).