Majority
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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 [2007]), 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 NY3d 383 , 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 , 495 [1987]). 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 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court’s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]), was a provident exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 , 207-208 [2002]; People v Smith, 63 AD3d 1301 , 1303-1304 [2009]; People v McLaurin, 33 AD3d 819 , 820 [2006]).
The trial court erred in allowing an investigator to testify regarding oral admissions made to him by the defendant of prior instances in which the defendant smuggled prison contraband (see People v Dorm, 12 NY3d 16 , 19 [2009]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 , 291 [1901]; People v Littlejohn, 112 AD3d 67 , 76 [2013]). However, that error was harmless, since there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error affected the jury’s verdict (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 , 237 [1975]; People v Araujo, 101 AD3d 741 , 742 [2012]).
Skelos, J.P, Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Danielson 9 NY3d 342 p. 921
- People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 921
- People v. Romero 7 NY3d 633 p. 921
- People v. Sandoval 34 NY2d 371 p. 921
- People v. Hayes 97 NY2d 203 at 207-208 p. 921
- People v. Smith 63 AD3d 1301 at 1303-1304 p. 921
- People v. McLaurin 33 AD3d 819 at 820 p. 921
- People v. Dorm 12 NY3d 16 at 19 p. 921
- People v. Molineux 168 NY 264 at 291 p. 921
- People v. Littlejohn 112 AD3d 67 at 76 p. 921
- People v. Crimmins 36 NY2d 230 at 237 p. 921
- People v. Araujo 101 AD3d 741 at 742 p. 921