| People v Haughey |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08635 [67 AD3d 928] |
| November 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v William J. Haughey, Appellant. |
—[*1] Adam B. Levy, District Attorney, Carmel, N.Y. (Mary Jane MacCrae of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.),rendered April 16, 2008, convicting him of arson in the second degree and criminal mischief inthe fourth degree, upon a 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, 492-493 [2008]; People vFinger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that itwas legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Peoplev Skinner, 162 AD2d 480 [1990]). 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 regarding any error in the admission of certain testimony of thefire investigator was not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, does not requirereversal (see People v Goldberg, 215 AD2d 402 [1995]; People v Maldonado,157 AD2d 674 [1990]).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]).
The County Court properly denied, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to set aside theverdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (2), based upon alleged juror misconduct (see People vMaragh, 94 NY2d 569 [2000]; People v South, 47 AD3d 734 [2008]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Balkinand Leventhal, JJ., concur.