| People v Noll |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02702 [82 AD3d 1266] |
| March 29, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Stephen Noll, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Guy Arcidiacono of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.),rendered April 13, 2007, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in thefirst degree, burglary in the third degree, and resisting arrest, after a nonjury trial, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt by legally sufficientevidence because he was not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect (see PenalLaw § 40.15). This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Ginsberg, 36 AD3d 627, 628 [2007]). In any event, viewing the evidence inthe light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]),we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt(see People v Trojan, 73 AD3d 818 [2010]; People v Ginsberg, 36 AD3d at 628).
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 fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hearthe 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 v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The People offeredexpert testimony to rebut the testimony of the defense expert that, due to a mental disease ordefect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate the nature andconsequences of his conduct, or that his conduct was wrong when he committed the crimes(see People v Trojan, 73 AD3d at 819; People v Hill, 276 AD2d 716 [2000];People v Rahman, 202 AD2d 696 [1994]). Florio, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Belen,JJ., concur.