People v Burwell
2008 NY Slip Op 09612 [57 AD3d 555]
December 2, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
AlfredBurwell, Appellant.

[*1]Stephen J. Pittari, White Plains, N.Y. (Salvatore A. Gaetani of counsel), for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Laurie Sapakoff, Richard Longworth Hecht,and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.),dated July 26, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-20 [1995]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt (see People vSmith, 16 AD3d 602 [2005]).

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence(see CPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo,2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley,69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict ofguilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).[*2]

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court did notprovide a meaningful response to a jury question is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Slacks, 90 NY2d 850 [1997]). In any event, the Supreme Courtresponded meaningfully to the note from the jury (see CPL 310.30; People v Malloy,55 NY2d 296 [1982], cert denied 459 US 847 [1982]; People v Hayes, 48 AD3d 831[2008]). Ritter, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dillon, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.