| People v Mathis |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01674 [60 AD3d 697] |
| March 3, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| 78—The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v William Mathis, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Howard B.Goodman of counsel; Avery N. Maron on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers,J.), rendered November 10, 2005, as amended November 17, 2005, convicting him of robbery inthe first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his intent tocommit robbery while acting in concert with another individual is unpreserved [*2]for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Sepulveda, 52 AD3d 539[2008]; People v Norman, 40 AD3d1128, 1129 [2007]; People vJohnson, 22 AD3d 600 [2005]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that itwas legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant acted in concertwith, and intentionally aided, his companion (see People v Witherspoon, 300 AD2d 605[2002]; People v Mejia, 297 AD2d 755, 756 [2002]; People v Ramos, 284 AD2d136 [2001]; People v Davis, 260 AD2d 726 [1999]). Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to viewthe witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing therecord here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence(see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.