Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered March 22, 2006, convicting him of aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree, upon a non-jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
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.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, EDWARD D. CARNI & THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
As a threshold matter, the defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05;People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484; People v Gordon, 47 AD3d 833, 833-834; People v Colon, 43 AD3d 951). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620; People v Hayes, 47 AD3d 835), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Burgos, 18 AD3d 667; People v Smith, 303 AD2d 426; People v Best, 294 AD2d 512). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), 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, cert denied 542 US 946; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495. 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 NY3d 633).
RIVERA, J.P., SANTUCCI, CARNI and DICKERSON, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...