| People v Fani |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00704 [59 AD3d 460] |
| February 3, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ghulam N. Fani, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Andrea M. DiGregorio and Michael E.Soffer of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sher, J.),rendered December 13, 2007, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree, after anonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was inadequate isunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Magnano, 77NY2d 941 [1991]). In any event, the record does not support the defendant's contention that thewaiver was invalid, as he executed a written waiver in open court, which was approved by thetrial justice, and the circumstances surrounding the waiver supported the conclusion that it wasknowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see CPL 320.10 [2]; People v Smith, 6 NY3d 827[2006]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to confrontation by the trialjustice's disallowance of four questions on his cross-examination of the complainant is partiallyunpreserved for appellate review. The defendant timely made his position known with respect tothe rulings as to two of the questions, thereby preserving this contention for appeal as to thosequestions (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v George, 67 NY2d 817, 819 [1986]).However, he did not timely make his position known with respect [*2]to the two remaining questions. Therefore, his contention as tothose questions is unpreserved for appellate review.
In any event, since the complainant subsequently answered two of the questions, thedefendant's contentions as to those questions are academic. The trial judge properly disallowedthe other two questions, as their answers were irrelevant (see People v Francisco, 44 AD3d 870 [2007]) or called forspeculation (see People v Monroe,30 AD3d 616, 617 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence leading to his conviction of criminal contemptin the second degree was legally insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins,11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidencewas legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
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, 349 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view the witnesses, hear thetestimony, and observe their 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 not against theweight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Balkin andEng, JJ., concur.