People v Stroman
2009 NY Slip Op 01684 [60 AD3d 708]
March 3, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 6, 2009


88—The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Pernell Stroman, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Ellen C.Abbot of counsel; Chaya Sarah Soloveichik on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter,J.), rendered January 8, 2007, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminalpossession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the identification evidence [*2]was preserved for appellate review (see People v Hines, 97NY2d 56 [2001]; People vBeriguete, 51 AD3d 939 [2008]; People v Mendez, 34 AD3d 697 [2006]). That challenge, however,is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (seePeople v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [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 discrepancies and inconsistencies between theidentification testimony of the complainant and a witness and statements in the police reportswere properly considered by the jury (see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80 [2004]; People v Colon, 42 AD3d 549[2007]; People v Almonte, 23AD3d 392 [2005]; People vFields, 28 AD3d 789 [2006]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Eng, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.