| People v Brightly |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00222 [91 AD3d 667] |
| Jnury 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shawn J. Brightly, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.),rendered August 20, 2008, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch ofthe defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484,492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to viewthe witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt wasnot against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the showup identification was spatially andtemporally proximate to the commission of the crime, and was not unduly suggestive (see People v Mais, 71 AD3d 1163,1165 [2010]). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant'somnibus motion which was to suppress the identification testimony.
The County Court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the People to impeach thedefendant's credibility with the underlying facts of a prior youthful offender adjudication (seePeople v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]; People v McLaurin, 33 AD3d 819 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85-86[1982]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved forappellate review, and in any event, is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Belen, Lott and Cohen, JJ.,concur.