| People v Singh |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02005 [60 AD3d 875] |
| March 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Balram Singh, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Peter A. Weinstein, Tammy J. Smiley,Andre K. Cizmarik, and Anthony J. Viola of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Quinn, J.),rendered May 25, 2006, convicting him of murder in the second degree, arson in the first degree(two counts), arson in the third degree, assault in the first degree, stalking in the third degree, andmenacing in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt (see Peoplev Casey, 37 AD3d 1113, 1114-1115 [2007]; People v Brown, 281 AD2d 700,700-701 [2001]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review ofthe weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, andobserve demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied542 US 946 [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]).
The trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to sever the stalking and menacingcounts from the remaining counts. The motion was untimely (see CPL 255.20), and thedefendant failed to [*2]demonstrate good cause for theuntimeliness (see People v Vernon, 304 AD2d 679 [2003]; People v Garcia, 259AD2d 630 [1999]). In any event, the separate offenses were properly joinable in a singleindictment pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2) (b), as the nature of the proof of the stalking andmenacing counts was material and admissible as evidence upon the trial of the remaining counts(see People v Laverpool, 52 AD3d622 [2008]).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Miller and Balkin, JJ., concur.