People v Cuneo (Robert)

[*1] People v Cuneo (Robert) 2010 NY Slip Op 52358(U) [30 Misc 3d 133(A)] Decided on October 21, 2010 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MOLIA, J.P., TANENBAUM and LaCAVA, JJ
2009-1822 S CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Robert Cuneo, Appellant.

Appeal from judgments of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Gigi A. Spelman, J.), rendered April 28, 2009. The judgments convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of menacing in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Defendant was charged with assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]), menacing in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.15) and endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]). Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of menacing in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and was acquitted of assault in the third degree.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1973]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant's guilt of menacing in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child. 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 [2007]), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity at the trial to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor and assess their credibility (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence (People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed. [*2]

Molia, J.P., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 21, 2010