Opinion
2014-05-7
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Cecil MYERS, appellant.
Judah Maltz, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jason R. Richards and Donald Berk of counsel), for respondent.
Judah Maltz, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jason R. Richards and Donald Berk of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), rendered March 14, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree (two counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree, and assault in the third 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 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 opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053,cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;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).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the New York Constitution since, viewing defense counsel's performance in totality, counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). Further, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution ( see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674).
The defendant's contention that the testimony of certain prosecution witnesses improperly bolstered the complainant's identification testimony is partially unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Sealy, 35 A.D.3d 510, 510–511, 826 N.Y.S.2d 358). In any event, any error in admitting this testimony was harmless, since the other evidence of the defendant's guilt, including the “clear and strong” identification testimony of the complaint, with whom the defendant had previously resided, was overwhelming, and there was no significant probability that, but for the error, the jury would have acquitted the defendant ( People v. Mobley, 56 N.Y.2d 584, 585, 450 N.Y.S.2d 302, 435 N.E.2d 672 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787;People v. Capehart, 60 A.D.3d 689, 690, 874 N.Y.S.2d 545;People v. Sealy, 35 A.D.3d at 511, 826 N.Y.S.2d 358). DICKERSON, J.P., HALL, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.