People v Mema

People v Mema 2014 NY Slip Op 02615 Decided on April 16, 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 April 16, 2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
PLUMMER E. LOTT
ROBERT J. MILLER
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
2013-00774
(Ind. No. 40096/11)

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

v

Patrick Mema, appellant.




Geanine Towers, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y.
(Morrie I. Kleinbart and Paul M.
Tarr of counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (DiDomenico, J.), rendered January 7, 2013, convicting him of menacing in the third degree, harassment in the second degree, and attempted menacing in the second 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 supporting his conviction of menacing in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21). In any event, 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 of menacing in the third degree 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 fact-finder'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 as to all of the crimes of which the defendant was convicted was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).
RIVERA, J.P., LOTT, MILLER and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court