Majority
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 , 621 [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 factfinder’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]). 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 defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the grand jury proceeding was defective because it failed “to conform to the requirements of [CPL article 190] to such degree that the integrity thereof is impaired and prejudice
Furthermore, the defendant’s contention that certain records of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department involving a firearm receipt and evidence logbook were improperly admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Verrilli, 69 AD3d 963 , 964 [2010]; People v Sprosta, 49 AD3d 784 , 785 [2008]) and, in any event, is without merit. Insofar as the documents constituted hearsay evidence, the People properly established a foundation for the admission of the documents as business records (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630 , 635 [1994]; Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117 , 122 [1979]; Johnson v Lutz, 253 NY 124 [1930]; People v Bell, 286 AD2d 443 [2001]; cf. People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569 , 579-580 [1986]). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s contention, admission of the documents did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers (see People v Dail, 69 AD3d 873 , 874 [2010]; see also Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts, 557 US —, —, 129 S Ct 2527 , 2539-2540 [2009]; Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 , 56 [2004]). Moreover, the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by virtue of trial counsel’s failure to object to the admission of these documents into evidence is without merit, as “[t]here can be no denial of effective assistance of trial counsel arising from counsel’s failure to ‘make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success’ ” (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143 , 152 [2005], quoting People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277 , 287 [2004]; see People v Contant, 77 AD3d 967 , 969 [2010]; People v Kent, 79 AD3d 52 , 71 [2010]). Angiolillo, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 at 621 p. 905
- People v. Danielson 9 NY3d 342 p. 905
- Middleton v. McNeil 542 US 946 p. 905
- People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 905
- People v. Romero 7 NY3d 633 p. 905
- People v. Brown 81 NY2d 798 p. 906
- People v. Brownlee 121 AD2d 553 at 554 p. 906
- People v. Huston 88 NY2d 400 at 409 p. 906
- People v. Verrilli 69 AD3d 963 at 964 p. 906
- People v. Sprosta 49 AD3d 784 at 785 p. 906
- People v. Guidice 83 NY2d 630 at 635 p. 906
- In re Leon RR 48 NY2d 117 at 122 p. 906
- Johnson v. Lutz 253 NY 124 p. 906
- People v. Kennedy 68 NY2d 569 at 579-580 p. 906
- People v. Dail 69 AD3d 873 at 874 p. 906
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts 129 S Ct 2527 at 2539-2540 p. 906
- Crawford v. Washington 541 US 36 at 56 p. 906
- People v. Caban 5 NY3d 143 at 152 p. 906
- People v. Contant 77 AD3d 967 at 969 p. 906
- People v. Kent 79 AD3d 52 at 71 p. 906