| People v Ramirez |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00411 [58 AD3d 757] |
| January 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Roberto Ramirez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Rebecca Height of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.),rendered March 22, 2006, convicting him of aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree, upon anonjury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
As a threshold matter, the defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidencesupporting his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484[2008]; People v Gordon, 47 AD3d833, 833-834 [2008]; People vColon, 43 AD3d 951 [2007]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]; People v Hayes, 47 AD3d 835[2008]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond areasonable doubt (see People vBurgos, 18 AD3d 667 [2005]; People v Smith, 303 AD2d 426 [2003];People v Best, 294 AD2d 512 [2002]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility toconduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342[2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view thewitnesses, 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 of guilt was notagainst the weight of the evidence (see[*2]People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Rivera, J.P.,Santucci, Carni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.