People v Park (Jung)

[*1] People v Park (Jung) 2020 NY Slip Op 50144(U) Decided on January 30, 2020 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 30, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : THOMAS A. ADAMS, P.J., TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, JJ
2018-968 W CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Jung E. Park, Appellant.

Jung E. Park, appellant pro se. Tuckahoe Village Attorney's Office (Gary Gjertsen of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Tuckahoe, Westchester County (David Otis Fuller, Jr., J.), rendered February 6, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant of disobeying a traffic control device, and imposed sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was convicted, following a nonjury trial, of disobeying a traffic control device (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110 [a]). To the extent that defendant's contention on appeal is that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish her guilt, by not moving for dismissal on this ground in the Justice Court, defendant failed to preserve this claim for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19—20 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). However, to the extent that defendant's contention is that the verdict of guilt was against the weight of the evidence, this contention needs no preservation (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). Upon a review of the record, while according great deference to the Justice Court's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we are of the opinion that the verdict should not be disturbed, as the trial court gave the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see CPL 470.15 [5]; Danielson, 9 NY3d 342). Consequently, we find that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., RUDERMAN and EMERSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: January 30, 2020