Majority
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), 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 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact 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 People established a sufficient foundation to admit into evidence recorded telephone calls the defendant made while incarcerated (see People v Collins, 90 AD3d 1069 , 1069 [2011]; see also People v Vasser, 97 AD3d 767 , 768 [2012]).
The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.
Balkin, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Hawkins 11 NY3d 484 p. 1156
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 p. 1156
- People v. Danielson 9 NY3d 342 p. 1156
- People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 1156
- People v. Romero 7 NY3d 633 p. 1156
- People v. Collins 90 AD3d 1069 at 1069 p. 1156
- People v. Vasser 97 AD3d 767 at 768 p. 1156