Opinion
02-25-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Nayely LAZARO, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Lori Glachman, and Claibourne Henry of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Lori Glachman, and Claibourne Henry of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Riviezzo, J.), rendered December 11, 2012, convicting her of assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the admission into evidence of expert testimony regarding the identifiers and practices of a certain gang, as that evidence was probative of the defendant's motive and provided necessary background to explain to the jury the relationship between the defendant, the codefendant, and the complainants (see People v. Guevara, 96 A.D.3d 781, 948 N.Y.S.2d 70 ; People v. Cruz, 46 A.D.3d 567, 846 N.Y.S.2d 376 ; People v. Ramirez, 23 A.D.3d 500, 501, 805 N.Y.S.2d 617 ; People v. Filipe, 7 A.D.3d 539, 540, 776 N.Y.S.2d 94 ). The probative value of this evidence outweighed any prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Guevara, 96 A.D.3d 781, 948 N.Y.S.2d 70 ; People v. Cruz, 46 A.D.3d 567, 846 N.Y.S.2d 376 ; People v. Ramirez, 23 A.D.3d at 501, 805 N.Y.S.2d 617 ).
The defendant's claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to support her conviction of assault in the second degree, based upon accessorial liability, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 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 that crime beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law §§ 20.00, 120.05[2] ; People v. Ramos, 74 A.D.3d 991, 992, 904 N.Y.S.2d 81 ; People v. Mayorga, 273 A.D.2d 480, 711 N.Y.S.2d 739 ). Additionally, 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 jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see 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 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 ).