| People v Holden |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 01673 [82 AD3d 792] |
| March 1, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Stephen Holden, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and William H. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Cooperman, J.), rendered April 22, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon inthe second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 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 conductan independent 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 against theweight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor's redirect examination of the detectivewho witnessed the defendant drop the firearm did not impermissibly bolster the detective'stestimony by introducing a prior consistent statement from the detective's testimony at thedefendant's prior trial. The trial court properly allowed the prosecutor to introduce a part of thedetective's prior testimony on redirect examination for the purpose of explaining and clarifying apart of the detective's prior testimony that was introduced on cross-examination (see People v Ochoa, 14 NY3d 180,186-187 [2010]; People v Torre, 42 NY2d 1036, 1037 [1977]; People v Melendez, 51 AD3d1040 [2008]; People vWilliams, 43 AD3d 414 [2007]; People v Johnson, 296 AD2d 422 [2002]).Skelos, J.P., Eng, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.