| People v Saunders |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 03975 |
| Decided on May 17, 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 May 17, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
JEFFREY A. COHEN
ROBERT J. MILLER
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
2013-07519
(Ind. No. 12-00433)
v
Michael Saunders, appellant.
Douglas J. Martino, Rye Brook, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (John J. Carmody, Laurie G. Sapakoff, and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered July 9, 2013, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
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 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, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The County Court did not err in precluding a recording of a phone call made by a police sergeant at the crime scene, as it did not meet the criteria to be admissible as a present sense impression. It was not a spontaneous description of events made substantially contemporaneously with the observations (see People v Jones, 28 NY3d 1037, 1039; People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729, 734; People v Ross, 237 AD2d 467).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
BALKIN, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court