-
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, his identity as one of two robbers. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]), we nevertheless accord
*677 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 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; People v Jean-Marie, 67 AD3d 704, 704 [2009]). Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the jury’s verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Mastro, A.EJ., Florio, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Document Info
Citation Numbers: 90 A.D.3d 676, 933 N.Y.2d 888
Filed Date: 12/6/2011
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024