People v Bracy

People v Bracy 2013 NY Slip Op 07053 Decided on October 30, 2013 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 October 30, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
JEFFREY A. COHEN
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
2011-02798
(Ind. No. 825/10)

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

v

Robert Bracy, appellant.




Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Natalie Rea of counsel), for
appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John
M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and
Amanda Aycock of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered February 25, 2011, convicting him of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, possession of burglar's tools, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), 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 factfinder'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).
DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, COHEN and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court