| People v Lyons |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01998 [60 AD3d 869] |
| March 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jermelil Lyons, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Lori Glachman ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.),rendered July 29, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in thethird degree (two counts), criminal mischief in the fourth degree, criminal possession of aweapon in the fourth degree, criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (twocounts), and conspiracy in the fourth 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 v Contes,60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant'sguilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent 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 cocaine allegedly possessed by him on February 7, 2007was improperly admitted into evidence is without merit. Reasonable assurances existed that thecocaine sought [*2]to be admitted was the same cocaine asallegedly was possessed by the defendant. Therefore, any deficiencies in the chain of custodywent only to the weight to be given to the evidence, not its admissibility (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d484 [2008]; People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 343 [1977]; People v Williams, 5 AD3d 705,706 [2004]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly permitted the People to amendthe indictment by changing the description of the weapon unlawfully possessed fromswitchblade knife to gravity knife (see CPL 200.70; People v Davilla, 272 AD2d552 [2000]). The defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced in any way by the amendment(see People v Hartman, 123 AD2d 883 [1986]).
The defendant's contention raised in point six of his brief is unpreserved for appellate reviewand his remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Miller and Chambers, JJ.,concur.