People v Whitney

People v Whitney 2012 NY Slip Op 03865 Decided on May 15, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 15, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
ANITA R. FLORIO
ARIEL E. BELEN
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2010-06679
(Ind. No. 09-00687)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Edward Whitney, appellant.




Jason M. Bernheimer, Katonah, N.Y., for appellant.
Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Lois
Cullen Valerio and Richard
Longworth Hecht of counsel; Frank
Marallo on the brief), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wetzel, J.), rendered May 7, 2010, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Additionally, 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), 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, cert denied 542 US 946; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). 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).

The defendant's challenge to certain supplemental jury instructions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hyland, 45 AD3d 781; People v Lewis, 247 AD2d 555). In any event, the Supreme Court responded meaningfully to the jury's inquiries (see People v Alomodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131; People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 301-303, cert denied 459 US 847; People v Hayes, 48 AD3d 831), and its response, which was in complete accord with defense counsel's suggestions, did not prejudice the defendant.
SKELOS, J.P., FLORIO, BELEN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court