| People v Pacienza |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00227 [91 AD3d 672] |
| Jnury 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Vincent Pacienza, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Andrea M.DiGregorio of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Donnino,J.), rendered January 21, 2011, convicting him of unlawful surveillance in the second degree,after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court,Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, Penal Law § 250.45 (3) (a) is notunconstitutionally vague. The statute provides a person of ordinary intelligence with a reasonableopportunity to know the conduct that is proscribed and contains clear standards for enforcement(see People v Stuart, 100 NY2d 412, 420 [2003]; People v Shack, 86 NY2d 529,538 [1995]; People v Eun Sil Jang,17 AD3d 693 [2005]). In addition, the rebuttable presumption set forth in Penal Law §250.45 (3) (b) is not a violation of due process rights, as there is a rational connection betweenthe facts proved and the fact presumed (see People v Leyva, 38 NY2d 160, 165-166[1975]; People v Terra, 303 NY 332, 335 [1951]; People v Rosano, 69 AD2d643, 656 [1979], affd 50 NY2d 1013 [1980]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [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 342,348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the trier of fact's opportunity to view thewitnesses, 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 notagainst the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Florio, J.P., Belen, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.