Majority
The defendant’s contention that the prosecution failed to disprove his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 , 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 , 19 [1995]; People v Acquista, 41 AD3d 491 , 491-492 [2007]; People v Santos-Mispas, 38 AD3d 923 [2007]). In any event, 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 disprove the defendant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 35.15;
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], 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]). Rivera, J.P, Eng, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Hawkins 11 NY3d 484 at 492 p. 862
- People v. Gray 86 NY2d 10 at 19 p. 862
- People v. Acquista 41 AD3d 491 at 491-492 p. 862
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 at 621 p. 862
- People v. Danielson 9 NY3d 342 p. 863
- Middleton v. McNeil 542 US 946 p. 863
- People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 863
- People v. Romero 7 NY3d 633 p. 863