Opinion
2018-07125 Ind. 325/17
07-28-2021
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Christopher G. Glass, appellant.
Leon H. Tracy, Jericho, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se. Joyce A. Smith, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and Kevin C. King of counsel), for respondent.
Leon H. Tracy, Jericho, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Joyce A. Smith, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and Kevin C. King of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. COLLEEN D. DUFFY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Meryl J. Berkowitz, J.), rendered June 6, 2018, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, assault in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions of attempted assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492; People v Myles, 172 A.D.3d 752). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of attempted assault in the first degree and both counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the evidence adduced at the trial, including the testimony of the complainant's physician, the complainant's medical records, and the clear and unobstructed video surveillance footage of the subject incident, we find that the People established the essential elements of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law §§ 10.00[10]; 110.00, 120.10[1]; 265.03[1][b]; [3]; People v Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296, 301-302; People v Mosquera, 181 A.D.3d 723, 724).
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), 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; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt on the count of attempted assault in the first degree and the counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633).
The sentence imposed is not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., DUFFY, BRATHWAITE NELSON and DOWLING, JJ., concur.