| People v Silva |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00230 [91 AD3d 675] |
| Jnury 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Thomas Silva, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A. Grob, andAllison Ageyeva of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice,J.), rendered June 30, 2009, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and assault in thesecond degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his waiver of theright to a jury trial was inadequate (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Magnano, 77NY2d 941 [1991], cert denied 502 US 864 [1991]). In any event, the record does notsupport the defendant's contention that the waiver was invalid, as he executed a written waiver inopen court, which was approved by the trial justice, and the circumstances surrounding thewaiver supported the Supreme Court's determination that the waiver was made knowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently (see CPL 320.10 [2]; People v Smith, 6 NY3d 827, 828 [2006], cert denied 548US 905 [2006]; People v O'Diah, 68AD3d 787 [2009]; People vFani, 59 AD3d 460 [2009]; People v Jones, 293 AD2d 627 [2002]).
The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that there waslegally insufficient evidence as to the intent element of the count of assault in the second degreeunder Penal Law § 120.05 (3) (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Finger, 95NY2d 894 [2000]; People v Cortes,44 AD3d 1068 [2007]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that there waslegally sufficient evidence that the defendant acted with the intent to prevent a police officerfrom performing his lawful duties, for purposes of that count (see People v Harley, 74 AD3d 1090, 1091 [2010]; People v Jenkins, 49 AD3d 780,781 [2008]; People v Coulanges, 264 AD2d 853 [1999]). 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 factfinder's opportunity toview the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guiltfor assault in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).[*2]
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see Peoplev Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Florio, J.P., Belen, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.