Opinion
2017–09117 Ind.No. 1841/15
11-20-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Robb BULL, appellant.
Joseph F. DeFelice, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant. John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Kathryn E. Mullen, and Josette Simmone of counsel), for respondent.
Joseph F. DeFelice, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant.
John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Kathryn E. Mullen, and Josette Simmone of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. SHERI S. ROMAN FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ira Margulis, J.), rendered August 15, 2017, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (three counts), robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (six counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). 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, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant's guilt of burglary in the first degree (three counts), robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (six counts), and endangering the welfare of a child. In particular, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that a loaded firearm brandished during the events in question was operable (see People v. Cavines, 70 N.Y.2d 882, 883, 524 N.Y.S.2d 178, 518 N.E.2d 1170 ; People v. Yarborough, 158 A.D.3d 430, 431, 69 N.Y.S.3d 50 ; People v. Williams, 151 A.D.3d 1834, 1835, 57 N.Y.S.3d 319 ; People v. Hailey, 128 A.D.3d 1415, 7 N.Y.S.3d 808 ).
Upon our independent review of the record (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (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 ).
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to permit the People to amend the indictment so as to delete any references to an unnamed third accomplice, since the amendment did not change the theory of the People's case or unduly prejudice the defendant (see CPL 200.70[1] ; People v. Hyland, 168 A.D.3d 1096, 92 N.Y.S.3d 412 ; People v. Christie, 210 A.D.2d 497, 620 N.Y.S.2d 990 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., ROMAN, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.