Opinion
08-10-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Timothy CERUTI, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Merri Turk Lasky, Mariana Zelig, and John McGoldrick of counsel), for respondent.
Motion by the appellant for leave to reargue an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 25, 2011, which was determined by decision and order of this Court dated October 14, 2015.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Merri Turk Lasky, Mariana Zelig, and John McGoldrick of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Knopf, J.), rendered October 25, 2011, convicting him of assault in the second degree, 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 of assault in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. 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, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder'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, 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 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's determination, in effect, that the facially neutral explanation provided by the prosecutor for excluding the prospective juror was not pretextual, is entitled to great deference on appeal, and is supported by the record (see People v. Tucker, 131 A.D.3d 713, 15 N.Y.S.3d 224 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, HALL and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.