Opinion
2013-11-13
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jay BOOKER, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A. Grob, and Claibourne I. Henry of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A. Grob, and Claibourne I. Henry of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered May 26, 2011, convicting him of assault on a peace officer, police officer, fireman or an emergency medical services professional and theft of services, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of assault on a peace officer, police officer, fireman or an emergency medical services professional is unpreserved for appellate review, as his general motion to dismiss the indictment, made at the close of his case, failed to specify any grounds for dismissal ( see CPL 470.05[2]; *795People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;People v. Flores, 88 A.D.3d 902, 903, 931 N.Y.S.2d 342;People v. Rivera, 74 A.D.3d 993, 904 N.Y.S.2d 449). 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 establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to that crime ( see Penal Law §§ 120.08, 10.00[10]; People v. Hutchinson, 57 A.D.3d 565, 870 N.Y.S.2d 365). 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, 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. denied542 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 as to that crime 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).
Under the circumstances of this case, including the seriousness of the crime and the defendant's three subsequent arrests, the denial of youthful offender treatment was a provident exercise of the Supreme Court's discretion ( see CPL 720.20[1] ).