| People v Burgess |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06249 [75 AD3d 650] |
| July 27, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent v KelvitBurgess, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Hae Jin Liu, Richard Longworth Hecht,and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(DiBella, J.), rendered November 28, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a weaponin the second degree, criminal possession of weapon in the third degree, and unlawful possessionof marijuana, 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 guilt ofthe crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees because theprosecution failed to establish the element of possession, is unpreserved for appellate review,since the defendant made only a general motion to dismiss the indictment and did not raise thespecific ground that he now raises on appeal (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Williams, 38 AD3d 925[2007]; People v Prahalad, 295 AD2d 373 [2002]). In any event, viewing the evidence inthe light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621[1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of those crimesbeyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview 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 factfinder's opportunity to view thewitnesses, 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 notagainst the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83[1982]). Skelos, J.P., Eng, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.