Majority
Appeal by
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of manslaughter in the second degree, under a theory of mutual combat, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 , 492-493 [2008]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894 , 895 [2000]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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 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]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.
Balkin, J.P, Cohen, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Hawkins 11 NY3d 484 at 492-493 p. 909
- People v. Finger 95 NY2d 894 at 895 p. 909
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 p. 909
- People v. Danielson 9 NY3d 342 p. 909
- People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 909
- People v. Romero 7 NY3d 633 p. 909
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 909