Opinion
06-21-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ozan WILLIAMS, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Kathleen Whooley of counsel), for appellant. Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Kathleen Whooley of counsel), for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered October 17, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court's charge to the jury on the definition of robbery in the second degree was deficient, and furthermore, constructively amended the indictment. He also contends that some of the prosecutor's summation comments compounded the court's alleged error in instructing the jury. The defendant's contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Dordal, 55 N.Y.2d 954, 956, 449 N.Y.S.2d 179, 434 N.E.2d 248 ; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 259, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9 ). In any event, the defendant's contentions are without merit (see Penal Law § 155.00 ; People v. Grega, 72 N.Y.2d 489, 534 N.Y.S.2d 647, 531 N.E.2d 279 ; People v. Santana, 172 A.D.2d 299, 568 N.Y.S.2d 604 ; cf. People v. Zambuto, 93 A.D.2d 873, 461 N.Y.S.2d 385 ; People v. Albanese, 88 A.D.2d 603, 449 N.Y.S.2d 765 ).
The defendant's claim of legal insufficiency is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329 ; People v. Slavin, 299 A.D.2d 499, 749 N.Y.S.2d 738, affd. 1 N.Y.3d 392, 775 N.Y.S.2d 210, 807 N.E.2d 259 ). In any event, 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 factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 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 attorney 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 ).
BALKIN, J.P., HALL, HINDS–RADIX and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.