| People v Serrano |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01672 [70 AD3d 1054] |
| February 23, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MarkSerrano, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.),rendered April 8, 2008, convicting him of murder in the first degree (20 counts), murder in thesecond degree (10 counts), arson in the third degree, robbery in the first degree (6 counts),conspiracy in the fourth degree, perjury in the second degree, and conspiracy in the fifth degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]; People v Williams, 38 AD3d925 [2007]). In any event, 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 toestablish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight ofthe evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), wenevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear thetestimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], certdenied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight ofthe evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The counts of the indictment charging murder in the first degree are not multiplicitous(see People v Timmons, 54 AD3d 883 [2008]). Furthermore, the defendant's challenge tothe instructions given to the grand jury is not reviewable on appeal, as his judgment ofconviction was based upon legally sufficient evidence (see People v DeHaney, 66 AD3d1040 [2009]). Moreover, the defendant failed to make a sufficient record to permit review of hisclaim that the trial court erred in its response to a jury note (see People v Ramirez, 60AD3d 560 [2009]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved forappellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Lott,JJ., concur.