| People v Baez |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01232 [59 AD3d 635] |
| February 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Edward Baez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Steven A. Hovani of counsel; ChristinaMolia Geraci on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.),rendered September 4, 2003, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree and criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conductan 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 jury's opportunity 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 of guilt was not againstthe weight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the jury verdict was repugnant is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985, 987 [1985]; People v Brown, 38 AD3d 676,677 [2007]). In any event, contrary to the defendant's contention, the verdict was not repugnantas a matter of law (see People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1 [1981]).
Also contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not deny him the right toconfront the witnesses against him by its decision to limit his cross-examination of a certainprosecution witness (see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 679 [1986]; People v Stevens, 45 AD3d 610,611 [2007]). Nor was the defendant denied his right to a fair trial by the testimony of a certainpolice officer that markings on the window of a vehicle involved with the subject incidentlooked like "cleansed markings" (see People v Russell, 165 AD2d 327, 332 [1991]).
The defendant's claim that the prosecutor's allegedly improper summation remarks deniedhim his right to a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911,912 [2006]; People v Garcia, 52AD3d 734 [2008]). In any event, the challenged remarks did not deny the defendant hisright to a fair trial, as "the . . . remarks were fair comment on the evidence,permissible rhetorical comment, or responsive to the defense counsel's summation" (People v Gillespie, 36 AD3d 626,627 [2007]; see People v Dorgan,42 AD3d 505 [2007]; People v McHarris, 297 AD2d 824, 825 [2002]; People vClark, 222 AD2d 446, 447 [1995]; People v Vaughn, 209 AD2d 459, 460 [1994]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions raised in Point III of his brief are without merit.Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Eng, JJ., concur.