SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
January 20, 2009
THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT,
ANDRE RAND, A/K/A FRANK RUSHAN, APPELLANT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered December 8, 2004, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree, upon a 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.
(Ind. No. 25/01)
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he abducted the victim by either secreting or holding her in a place where she was not likely to be found or by using or threatening to use deadly force (see Penal Law § 135.00). The defendant's legal insufficiency claim is not preserved for appellate review to the extent it is premised upon whether there was legally sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he abducted the victim by using or threatening to use deadly force (see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 280). 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 the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Thibodeau, 267 AD2d 952; People v Salimi, 159 AD2d 658).
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).
The defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563; People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Acevedo, 44 AD3d 168, 173; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d 745; People v Groonell, 256 AD2d 356, 357).
The defendant's remaining contentions raised in Points II and III of his brief are not preserved for appellate review.
RIVERA, J.P., SANTUCCI, CARNI and DICKERSON, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.