People v Cowan

Annotate this Case
People v Cowan 2010 NY Slip Op 07562 [77 AD3d 850] October 19, 2010 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, December 15, 2010

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Anthony Cowan, Appellant.

—[*1] Mitchell Dranow, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Barbara Kornblau and Christopher A. Dailey of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered July 10, 2006, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

As it is undisputed that a recording of the subject drug transaction was audible and intelligible, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the jury, with the proper limiting instruction, to utilize a transcript as an aid while listening to the recording at trial (see People v Redmond, 41 AD3d 514 [2007]; People v Gkanios, 199 AD2d 411 [1993]; People v Papa, 168 AD2d 692 [1990]; People v Carrington, 151 AD2d 687 [1989]; People v Mincey, 64 AD2d 615 [1978]).

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]), and the period of postrelease supervision was not illegal (see Penal Law § 70.45 [2] [d];§ 70.70 [3] [b] [i]). Skelos, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.