Opinion
11-01-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Bryan PAYERO, appellant.
Donaldson & Chilliest, New York, N.Y. (Xavier Donaldson of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, and Marie John–Drigo of counsel), for respondent.
Donaldson & Chilliest, New York, N.Y. (Xavier Donaldson of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, and Marie John–Drigo of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harrington, J.), rendered September 22, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, attempted assault in the second 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 of each charge 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, 348, 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, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon a review of the record, 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, 645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by improper remarks made by the prosecutor during her summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Dunning, 148 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 49 N.Y.S.3d 755 ; People v. Choi, 137 A.D.3d 808, 810, 26 N.Y.S.3d 333 ). In any event, this contention is without merit, since the comments alleged to be prejudicial were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, fair response to the defendant's attack on the credibility of the People's complaining witnesses, or permissible rhetorical comment (see People v. Beer, 146 A.D.3d 895, 897, 47 N.Y.S.3d 38 ; People v. Thomas, 143 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 40 N.Y.S.3d 462 ; People v. Ramrattan, 126 A.D.3d 1013, 1014, 6 N.Y.S.3d 131 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., MILLER, HINDS–RADIX and DUFFY, JJ., concur.