Opinion
2021-04156 Ind. 1289/18
06-30-2021
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Kareem Williams, appellant.
Joseph A. Hanshe, Sayville, NY, for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), for respondent.
Joseph A. Hanshe, Sayville, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), for respondent.
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, J.P., FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Anthony Senft, Jr., J.), rendered May 7, 2019, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a firearm, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his convictions are not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492; People v Pearsall, 171 A.D.3d 1096, 1096). In any event, 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 (see People v Moses, 177 A.D.3d 619, 620; People v Williams, 170 A.D.3d 1046, 1047). 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), 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; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his application for a missing witness charge. The defendant's application for a missing witness charge was untimely, as it was not made until the charge conference, after the close of evidence (see People v Joseph, 161 A.D.3d 1105, 1105; People v Mancusi, 161 A.D.3d 775, 776; People v Sealy, 35 A.D.3d 510, 510). In any event, the witness's testimony would have been cumulative (see People v Mancusi, 161 A.D.3d at 776), and the witness was unavailable to the People (see People v Joseph, 161 A.D.3d at 1105).
HINDS-RADIX, J.P., CONNOLLY, IANNACCI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.