Opinion
2014-10-22
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christopher SARANTAKIS, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Ayelet Sela of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Ayelet Sela of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Margulis, J.), rendered March 6, 2012, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the conviction of burglary in the third degree, as the People presented sufficient evidence showing that the defendant entered the nonpublic area of a jewelry store with the intent to commit a crime therein, by stepping over or removing an obstruction and entering the area behind the front display cases and forcing open locked cabinet doors, breaking glass doors, and removing jewelry contained inside the cabinets ( seePenal Law § 140.00[5]; People v. Bethune, 65 A.D.3d 749, 751, 884 N.Y.S.2d 503; People v. Barksdale, 50 A.D.3d 400, 401, 858 N.Y.S.2d 5; People v. Thomas, 38 A.D.3d 1134, 1135, 832 N.Y.S.2d 688; People v. Quinones, 18 A.D.3d 330, 795 N.Y.S.2d 47; People v. Daniels, 8 A.D.3d 1022, 778 N.Y.S.2d 241; People v. Terry, 2 A.D.3d 977, 978, 768 N.Y.S.2d 516; People v. Durecot, 224 A.D.2d 264, 638 N.Y.S.2d 16). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 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 factfinder'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 as to the charge of burglary in the third degree 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; People v. Watson, 221 A.D.2d 264, 634 N.Y.S.2d 78).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).