| People v Manley |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01999 [60 AD3d 870] |
| March 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JoeManley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Laura T.Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann,J.), rendered May 17, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possessionof a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upona jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Finger,95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legallysufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt wasnot against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The fact that some ofthe People's witnesses had unsavory backgrounds and testified pursuant to cooperationagreements did not render their testimony [*2]incredible (see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80[2004]; People v Adams, 302 AD2d 601 [2003]).
The defendant's contention that he was entitled to an accomplice corroboration chargepursuant to CPL 60.22 is also unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Edwards, 28 AD3d491, 492 [2006]; People vRudd, 1 AD3d 539, 540 [2003]) and, in any event, is without merit (see e.g. Peoplev Edwards, 28 AD3d at 492; People v Young, 235 AD2d 441, 442 [1997];People v Morillo, 156 AD2d 479, 480 [1989]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel.Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the defendant received meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Taylor,1 NY3d 174, 176 [2003]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Spolzino, J.P.,Ritter, Miller and Balkin, JJ., concur.