Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Joseph A. Zayas, J.), rendered November 10, 2008.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: WESTON, J.P., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
The judgment convicted defendant, after a non-jury trial, of attempted endangering the welfare of a child and public lewdness.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant was charged with sexual abuse in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.55), endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 ) and public lewdness (Penal Law § 245.00). Prior to trial, the People reduced the charge of endangering the welfare of a child to attempted endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 260.10 ). Following a non-jury trial, defendant was convicted of attempted endangering the welfare of a child and public lewdness, and was acquitted of the charge of sexual abuse in the third degree.
Defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 ; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 ; People v Williams, 38 AD3d 925 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, of attempted endangering the welfare of a child and public lewdness.
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 accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor and assess their credibility (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 ; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ). Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 ). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Weston, J.P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.