| People v Sulayao |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00420 [58 AD3d 769] |
| January 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AllanSulayao, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Daniel Bresnahan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Cooperman, J.), rendered November 22, 2004, convicting him of assault in the first degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's generalized motion to dismiss made at the conclusion of the People's casefailed to preserve his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d484 [2008]; CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorableto the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Cox, 21 AD3d 1361,1362 [2005]; People v Bodenburg,7 AD3d 534, 535 [2004]).
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight ofthe evidence (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]). [*2]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]; People vBodenburg, 7 AD3d at 535; Peoplev Rosario, 6 AD3d 175 [2004]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion inpermitting a Powerpoint presentation on the mechanics and injuries associated with shaken babysyndrome, as the probative value of the presentation outweighed its prejudicial effect (seePeople v Yates, 290 AD2d 888, 889-890 [2002]; see generally People v Scarola, 71NY2d 769, 777 [1988]; People v Acevedo, 40 NY2d 701, 704 [1976]). Moreover, anyresultant prejudice was minimized by the court's limiting instructions to the jury (see Peoplev Yates, 290 AD2d at 890). Likewise, the trial court providently exercised its discretion inallowing an expert witness to shake a doll in order to demonstrate the force necessary to inflictshaken baby syndrome (see People v Kendall, 254 AD2d 809, 810 [1998]).
While some of the People's rebuttal testimony was cumulative of what they had alreadypresented on their direct case and should have been excluded from evidence (see People vKendall, 255 AD2d 601 [1998]; People v Alston, 158 AD2d 607 [1990]), any errorwas harmless as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significantprobability that the error contributed to his conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Kendall, 255 AD2d at 601; People v Barber, 175AD2d 560 [1991]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Carni andDickerson, JJ., concur.