| People v Reid |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02705 [82 AD3d 1268] |
| March 29, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kavon Reid, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Lois Cullen Valerio and RichardLongworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Zambelli, J.), rendered June 10, 2008, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts)and assault in the third 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 support hisconvictions of burglary in the first degree (two counts) and assault in the third degree because theprosecution failed to establish his identity as the perpetrator of those crimes is unpreserved forappellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People vRobles, 34 AD3d 849, 849 [2006]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we findthat it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonabledoubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weightof 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 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 verdicts of guilt on the charges ofburglary in the first degree and assault in the third degree were not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The discrepancies andinconsistencies between the identification testimony of the complainant and statements in thepolice reports and to a 911 operator were properly before the jury for consideration (seePeople v Jean-Marie, 67 AD3d 704, 705 [2009]; People v Stroman, 60 AD3d 708,708 [2009]; People v Fields, 28 AD3d 789, 790 [2006]). Prudenti, P.J., Eng, Belen andSgroi, JJ., concur.