Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (Brian Hansbury, J.), rendered June 10, 2010.
People v Edwards (Willie)
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 13, 2012
PRESENT: LaCAVA, J.P., MOLIA and IANNACCI, JJ
The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of resisting arrest.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). Evidence was adduced at the trial that defendant was arrested, pursuant to a warrant, by four officers in the parking lot of his apartment building. Witnesses for the People testified that defendant was informed repeatedly that he was being placed under arrest prior to his scuffle with the officers during which defendant was tackled and brought to the ground; witnesses for the defense described an unexpected physical attack upon defendant by multiple uniformed officers who had approached defendant at a run and without any warning.
Defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction is not preserved for appellate review (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 ; People v Lawrence, 85 NY2d 1002, 1004-1005 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 493 ), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction. Although a person cannot form the requisite intent to resist arrest if he is in fact unaware that an officer is attempting to arrest him (see People v Saitta, 79 AD2d 994, 994 ), here there was sufficient evidence of the police informing defendant that he was being placed under arrest and defendant's subsequent actions resisting that arrest to support the jury's verdict.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 ; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 347 ), 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 Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 ; 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.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
LaCava, J.P., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur. Decision ...