| People v Nedd |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09943 [79 AD3d 1150] |
| December 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Gregory Nedd, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Kristina Sapaskis of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.),rendered April 24, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in thefourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review thedenial, after a hearing (Grosso, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which wasto suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that thepretrial identification procedures employed in this case were not unduly suggestive. The SupremeCourt properly determined that the passage of approximately two months between the display ofphotographs to the complainant and her identification of the defendant at the lineup attenuatedany possible taint of suggestiveness (see People v Ashby, 289 AD2d 588 [2001];People v Butts, 279 AD2d 587 [2001]; People v Hamilton, 271 AD2d 618, 619[2000]).
The defendant's contention that the accomplice testimony was not sufficiently corroboratedto support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Rivera, 74 AD3d 993 [2010]; People v Huertas, 65 AD3d 594 [2009]).In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see Peoplev Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant'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, 348-349[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 (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 634-635 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86[1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.