Opinion
2014-08-13
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. James GOODMAN, appellant.
Douglas G. Rankin, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Terrence F. Heller of counsel), for respondent.
Douglas G. Rankin, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Terrence F. Heller of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered February 28, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the identification evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of robbery in the first degree and unlawful imprisonmentin the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Shearer, 114 A.D.3d 708, 979 N.Y.S.2d 659). 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 identity beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 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 jury'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).
Upon our review of the issues preserved for appellate review that relate to the alleged failure of the People to properly authenticate certain recordings of telephone calls made by the defendant while he was incarcerated, we find the defendant's contentions with respect to those issues to be without merit ( see People v. Vasser, 97 A.D.3d 767, 948 N.Y.S.2d 419;People v. Collins, 90 A.D.3d 1069, 934 N.Y.S.2d 830).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. DILLON, J.P., HALL, SGROI and BARROS, JJ., concur.