People v Samaroo
Annotate this CaseDecided on March 30, 2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
SHERI S. ROMAN
BETSY BARROS, JJ.
2013-10699
(Ind. No. 2323/12)
[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Daniel Samaroo, appellant.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Samuel Brown of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Jeannette Lifschitz, and Denise A. Biderman of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered November 14, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, 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 establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 160.10[1], [2][a]; People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447; People v Walters, 69 AD3d 768, 768-769). 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), 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). 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, 644).
In addition, the trial court properly denied the defendant's request for a missing witness charge, as there was no evidence that the uncalled witnesses would provide noncumulative testimony (see People v Edwards, 14 NY3d 733, 735; People v Stewart, 96 AD3d 880, 881).
MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and BARROS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
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.