| People v Hall |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06868 [65 AD3d 1377] |
| September 29, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Connie Hall, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J.Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.),rendered May 16, 2007, convicting her of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that sheused a "dangerous instrument" to injure the complainant is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to establish that the defendant used a dangerous instrument to injure thecomplainant (see Penal Law § 10.00 [13]; § 120.05 [2]). Furthermore,contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence was legally sufficient to disprove herjustification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 35.15 [1] [b];People v Acquista, 41 AD3d 491, 492 [2007]; People v Suphal, 7 AD3d 547,547-548 [2004]; People v Williams, 304 AD2d 595 [2003]). Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord greatdeference 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 (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contentions regarding the jury instruction concerning "dangerousinstruments," and the denial of her request for a charge on the justifiable use of "ordinaryphysical force," are without merit. The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved forappellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Covello, Leventhal andRoman, JJ., concur.