Opinion
2013–05451 Ind. No. 5810/11
04-10-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Nickenson PIERRE–LOUIS, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Hannah Zhao of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Joyce Slevin, and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP [Natalie A. Lum–Tai ], of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Hannah Zhao of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Joyce Slevin, and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP [Natalie A. Lum–Tai ], of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of assault in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt because the People failed to prove the identity of the object that he used to inflict injury upon the complainant is without merit. The particular identity of the dangerous instrument is not an element of assault in the second degree (see Penal Law § 120.05[2] ; People v. Carrington , 155 A.D.3d 888, 889, 63 N.Y.S.3d 710 ). The evidence showed that the defendant cut the victim with a sharp object, causing lacerations to his face and back, which was sufficient to prove the "dangerous instrument" element of assault in the second degree.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the prosecution failed to disprove his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Edwards , 160 A.D.3d 658, 658, 73 N.Y.S.3d 602 ; People v. Thomas , 156 A.D.3d 915, 916, 68 N.Y.S.3d 127 ; People v. Simpson , 151 A.D.3d 762, 762, 56 N.Y.S.3d 253 ). In any event, the evidence, when viewed 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 ), was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Edwards , 160 A.D.3d at 658, 73 N.Y.S.3d 602 ; People v. Simpson , 151 A.D.3d at 762, 56 N.Y.S.3d 253 ).
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 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 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 ). The defendant's contention that the jury's verdict of guilt with respect to assault in the second degree was inconsistent with its verdict of not guilty on the count charging him with criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree is unavailing (see People v. Kent , 79 A.D.3d 52, 64, 910 N.Y.S.2d 78, mod 19 N.Y.3d 290, 947 N.Y.S.2d 798, 970 N.E.2d 833 ).
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.