People v. Pimental

The complainant was robbed at gunpoint in her home. Approximately one month after the crime, the complainant identified the defendant in a lineup as the perpetrator.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 , 19). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt on all counts beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Balletta, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.