- October 11, 2019
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Felice B. Milani of
counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Grazia
DiVincenzo and Guy Arcidiacono of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, BETSY BARROS,
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk
County (Timothy P. Mazzei, J.), rendered March 14, 2018,
convicting him of burglary in the first degree (three
counts), criminal use of a firearm in the first degree,
criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and
endangering the welfare of a child (three counts), upon a
jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
that the judgment is affirmed.
defendant's challenges to the legal sufficiency of the
evidence supporting his convictions are unpreserved for
appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v
Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492). In any event, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution
(see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find
that it was legally sufficient to establish the
defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in
fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent
review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL
470.15; People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348),
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 N.Y.3d 383,
410; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 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 N.Y.3d 633).
defendant's contention that the County Court committed a
mode of proceedings error in its handling of a jury note
(see CPL 310.30; People v O'Rama, 78
N.Y.2d 270) requesting, inter alia, to review a portion of a
surveillance video in slow motion is without merit (see
People v Alcide, 21 N.Y.3d 687, 694). Contrary to the
defendant's contention, defense counsel received advance
notice of the contents of the jury note, as a copy of it was
provided to him before the jury entered the courtroom and the
court responded to the note. Since counsel failed to discuss
a possible response to the note or to object to the
court's response at a time when any error could have been
cured, the defendant's claim is unpreserved for appellate
review (see People v Williams, 21 N.Y.3d 932, 935).
In any event, the record demonstrates that the court
fulfilled its core responsibilities in responding to the
jury's note (see People v Heron, 130 A.D.3d 754,
756; People v Cherry, 127 A.D.3d 879, 880-881).
contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of
one of the complaining eyewitnesses did not constitute
improper bolstering, but was properly admitted to establish
the commission of the crimes as well as the events that led
to the defendant's arrest and the recovery of the firearm
(see People v Rosario, 100 A.D.3d 660, 661).
sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v
Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, JP, DUFFY, BARROS and ...