People v Phillips

People v Phillips 2014 NY Slip Op 09153 Decided on December 31, 2014 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 December 31, 2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
SHERI S. ROMAN
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2011-06519
(Ind. No. 10-00380)

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

v

Jason Phillips, also known as Jason Hill, appellant.

Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (John J. Carmody, Steven A. Bender, and Jennifer Spencer of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Warhit, J.), rendered May 24, 2011, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree (two counts) and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the identification evidence supporting his convictions 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 People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348), 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; 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). Contrary to the defendant's contention, his intent to rob the victim could be inferred from his conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301-302; Matter of Andrew S., 177 AD2d 428, 428-429).

ENG, P.J., MASTRO, ROMAN and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court