Opinion
2019-1510 N CR
08-05-2021
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mohammed Shahriar, Appellant.
Kristina S. Heuser, for appellant. Nassau County District Attorney (John B. Latella and Andrew Fukuda of counsel), for respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DECISION
Kristina S. Heuser, for appellant.
Nassau County District Attorney (John B. Latella and Andrew Fukuda of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT:: TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, P.J., JERRY GARGUILO, TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, JJ
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Glen Cove, Nassau County (Richard J. McCord, J.), rendered July 31, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the second degree, and imposed sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50 [3]). Defendant was sentenced to a three-year term of probation, and the court issued a five-year stay-away order of protection in favor of the complainant against defendant. On appeal, defendant contends, among other things, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, he was deprived of meaningful representation, and his sentence is excessive.
In conducting an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [2]; People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348 [2007]), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Lane, 7 N.Y.3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 409 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [1987]). We find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
Contrary to defendant's contention, defense counsel provided him with meaningful representation in accordance with the New York State standard (see NY Const, art I, § 6; People v Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 155-156 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714 [1988]).
It is well settled that sentencing is a matter committed to the sentencing court's discretion (see People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305 [1981]; see also People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85 [1982]). A review of the record indicates that defendant's sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80), and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant a modification of the sentence (see People v Hodges, 13 A.D.3d 979 [2004]; People v Singh, 63 Misc.3d 163 [A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50928[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]).
Defendant's remaining contention is without merit. The determination to admit videotape evidence "generally rests... within a trial court's founded discretion" (People v Patterson, 93 N.Y.2d 80, 84 [1999]). In our view, the court properly precluded admission of the video evidence (see People v Chess, 66 Misc.3d 142 [A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50166[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2020]).
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
RUDERMAN, P.J., GARGUILO and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.