SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
April 1, 2011
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Joseph A. Zayas, J.), rendered November 10, 2008.
People v James (Robert)
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on April 1, 2011
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.
Decision Date: April 01, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.