People v Davis

People v Davis 2011 NY Slip Op 00236 Decided on January 11, 2011 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 January 11, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
JOSEPH COVELLO, J.P.
RANDALL T. ENG
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.
2008-03670
(Ind. No. 6819/06)

[*1]The People, etc., respondent,

v

Kevin Davis, appellant.




Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel),
for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard
Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and
Terry-Ann Llewellyn of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered April 6, 2008, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, sodomy in the second degree, criminal sexual act in the second degree (11 counts), rape in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, 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 Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), 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), 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, 643).

The defendant's contention that 13 of the counts of the indictment were rendered duplicitous by trial testimony is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Drysdale, 295 AD2d 533, 533), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6]; People v Nash, 77 AD3d 687, 688; People v Saintilus, 74 AD3d 996, 997).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
COVELLO, J.P., ENG, CHAMBERS and HALL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court