| People v Ward |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06583 [65 AD3d 1172] |
| September 15, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rodney Ward, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee,and James M. Weir of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.),rendered April 11, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the prosecution didnot disprove his justification defense by legally sufficient evidence (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d484, 491-492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Garguilio, 57 AD3d 797[2008]). In any event, 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 todisprove the justification defense and to establish the defendant's guilt of murder in the seconddegree beyond a reasonable doubt (seePeople v Pickens, 60 AD3d 699 [2009]; People v Wahedi, 301 AD2d 541, 542[2003]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of theweight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the recordhere, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant's challenge to the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (see People vSandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) also is without merit. The Supreme Court properly weighedthe probative value of the defendant's prior criminal acts on the issue of his credibility againstthe possible prejudice to him and reached an appropriate compromise ruling (see People v Mathis, 55 AD3d628 [2008]; People v Fotiou,39 AD3d 877, 877-878 [2007];People v Springer, 13 AD3d 657, 658 [2004]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Covello and Austin, JJ., concur.