| People v Donovan |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00224 [58 AD3d 640] |
| January 13, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dayna Donovan, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JeanetteLifschitz, and Tamara A. Daniels of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Cooperman, J.), rendered June 8, 2006, convicting her of endangering the welfare of a childunder indictment No. 612/05, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) from anamended judgment of the same court, also rendered June 8, 2006, revoking a sentence ofprobation previously imposed by the same court (Wong, J.) under Superior Court informationNo. 1790/04 upon a finding that she had violated conditions thereof, upon her plea of guilty, andimposing a sentence of imprisonment upon her prior conviction of burglary in the third degree.
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the recordhere, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
Further, although the jury acquitted the defendant of burglary in the first degree, robbery inthe second degree, and other related charges, the jury verdict was not repugnant as a matter oflaw (see People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1 [1981]). We further note that, under thecircumstances, the [*2]jury was permitted to accept or rejectportions of the complainant's testimony and portions of the defendant's own testimony (cf.People v Roman, 217 AD2d 431, 432 [1995]; People v Green, 113 AD2d 713, 715[1985]). In any event, it is possible that the jury exercised mercy, which is not a ground forreversal where the verdict is not repugnant as a matter of law (see People v Rayam, 94NY2d 557 [2000]; People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 7 [1981]; People v Martinez,201 AD2d 671, 672 [1994]; People v Montgomery, 116 AD2d 669, 670 [1986]).
In light of our determination, the defendant's contention that a reversal of the judgmentrendered under indictment No. 612/05 would require reversal of the amended judgment renderedunder Superior Court information No. 1790/04, is academic (see People v Wilkins, 176AD2d 976, 978 [1991]). Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.