Opinion
05-24-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Davis MATA, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Michael Arthus of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Joseph N. Ferdenzi, and Aurora Alvarez–Calderon of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Michael Arthus of counsel), for appellant.Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Joseph N. Ferdenzi, and Aurora Alvarez–Calderon of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered August 13, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and false personation, 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 unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 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, 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 robbery in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt, including the element of larcenous intent (see People v. Knox, 137 A.D.3d 1330, 1331, 25 N.Y.S.3d 751 ; Matter of Merriel B., 9 A.D.3d 256, 779 N.Y.S.2d 203 ; Matter of Eliazar G., 4 A.D.3d 157, 772 N.Y.S.2d 259 ). Likewise, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt, including the element that the complainant suffered a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law §§ 120.00 and 10.00(9) (see Matter of Ashley M., 35 A.D.3d 612, 825 N.Y.S.2d 748 ). Moreover, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those crimes was not against the weight of the evidence.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's questioning of witnesses deprived him of a fair trial and due process is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886, 888, 453 N.Y.S.2d 399, 438 N.E.2d 1114 ) and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Melendez, 31 A.D.3d 186, 815 N.Y.S.2d 551 ; People v. Walker, 182 A.D.2d 731, 585 N.Y.S.2d 712 ).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., HALL, HINDS–RADIX and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.