People v Qiong Yu

[*1] People v Qiong Yu 2009 NY Slip Op 52134(U) [25 Misc 3d 131(A)] Decided on October 21, 2009 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 21, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ
570291/05.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Qiong Yu, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered March 11, 2005, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered March 11, 2005, affirmed.

We find that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). Moreover, after applying the appropriate standard of review (see id. at 348-349), we conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Defendant's unpreserved contention that the trial judge was unable to evaluate properly the photographic evidence presented at trial because of his alleged visual impairment is based on factual assertions outside of the record and is thus unreviewable on direct appeal (see People v Oliveri, 29 AD3d 330, 331, lv denied 7 NY3d 760 [2006]; see also People v Wright, 31 AD3d 798 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 871 [2006]). Nor does the present record support defendant's related ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

We find no basis for reducing defendant's sentence, and note that the relief now sought by defendant the grant of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is not statutorily authorized (see CPL 170.55[1]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: October 21, 2009