People v. Woods , 999 N.Y.S.2d 533 ( 2014 )

People v Woods (2014 NY Slip Op 09160)

People v Woods

2014 NY Slip Op 09160

Decided on December 31, 2014

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 31, 2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

2013-01200
(Ind. No. 2433/11)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Thomas Woods, appellant.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Casey Rose Denson and Denise Corsi of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Stephanie D. Schwartz of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), rendered January 24, 2013, convicting him of attempted robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence of identification was legally insufficient to support the conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492; People v Sheehan, 105 AD3d 873; People v Judge, 101 AD3d 902; People v Joseph, 74 AD3d 840). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant's identity as the man who attempted to rob the complainants' liquor store. 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 NY3d 342, 348-349; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645), 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 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495; People v Jean-Marie, 67 AD3d 704, 704). Here, upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).

SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, AUSTIN and MALTESE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court