Majority
p. 764The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrew Kerr, Appellant. [947 NYS2d 910]
The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];
p. 765
People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 , 492 [2008]). 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], 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant’s remaining contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony, is without merit. Rivera, J.E, Eng, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Hawkins 11 NY3d 484 at 492 p. 765
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 p. 765
- People v. Danielson 9 NY3d 342 p. 765
- Middleton v. McNeil 542 US 946 p. 765
- People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 765
- People v. Romero 7 NY3d 633 p. 765
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 765