Opinion
58 A.D.3d 771 873 N.Y.S.2d 641 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Leverne WILLIAMS, a/k/a " Duty," appellant. 2009-00421 Supreme Court of New York, Second Department January 20, 2009
Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, EDWARD D. CARNI, and JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered March 18, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (four counts), robbery in the first degree (four counts), and robbery in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, 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, 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. 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, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; 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 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The defendant's contention that the People were required to provide him with notice of the identification testimony of a victim is without merit. Since there was no previous identification of the defendant by the victim, no such notice was required ( seePeople v. Goodwine, CPL 710.30; 46 A.D.3d 702, 703, 848 N.Y.S.2d 243; People v. Soto, 22 A.D.3d 511, 803 N.Y.S.2d 88; People v. Romano, 282 A.D.2d 764, 765, 724 N.Y.S.2d 348, cert. denied 535 U.S. 1020, 122 S.Ct. 1613, 152 L.Ed.2d 626).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.