| People v Albanese |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04263 [84 AD3d 1107] |
| May 17, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Renato Albanese, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Zambelli, J.), rendered October 6, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the second degree,criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and attempted petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, andimposing 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 of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see PenalLaw § 140.25 [2]; People vEhikhamenor, 72 AD3d 700 [2010]; People v Diaz, 53 AD3d 504, 505 [2008]). Moreover, in fulfillingour responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (seeCPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied thatthe verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding the defendant'sexpert from testifying regarding the potential effects of the combined use of alcohol andprescription medicine because that proposed testimony was not supported by evidence in therecord (see People v Casper, 42AD3d 887, 889 [2007]; People v Benson, 206 AD2d 674, 675 [1994]; seegenerally People v Cronin, 60 NY2d 430, 432-433 [1983]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not err in refusing to give anintoxication charge to the jury (see Penal Law § 15.25). Viewing the intoxicationevidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Gaines, 83 NY2d 925,927 [1994]), it was insufficient to allow a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to theelement of intent (id.; see Peoplev Brown, 73 AD3d 940, 940-941 [2010]; People v Garcia, 271 AD2d 695[2000]; People v Giannattasio, 235 AD2d 548 [1997]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of [*2]counsel is, in part, based on matter dehors the record and, to thatextent, it may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Ramos, 77 AD3d 773, 775 [2010]). Insofar as therecord permits review of the claim, we find that defense counsel provided meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Covello, J.P., Eng, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.