| People v Perez |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 01717 |
| Decided on March 8, 2017 |
| 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 March 8, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
2012-08247
(Ind. No. 20399/11)
v
Silvio Perez, appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Allen Fallek of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Ross of counsel; Jenna Tersteegen on the brief), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Morgenstern, J.), rendered August 6, 2012, convicting him of attempted assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree, and harassment in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence 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, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt of attempted assault in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00[1]; see People v Ward, 120 AD3d 1440, 1440-1441), menacing in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.15; see Matter of Monay W., 33 AD3d 809, 810), and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26[1]; see People v Rodriguez, 111 AD3d 856, 858). 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, 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, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those crimes was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644).
DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, HINDS-RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court