People v Uka
2012 NY Slip Op 01491 [92 AD3d 907]
February 21, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 28, 2012


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Armando Uka, Appellant.

[*1]Nnebe & Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (O. Valentine Nnebe of counsel), forappellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and John F.McGoldrick of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Camacho,J.), rendered October 26, 2010, convicting him of assault in the second degree, assault in thethird degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing 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 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[2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses,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 not against theweight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, reversal is not warranted due to the late disclosure ofcertain Rosario material (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 [1961], certdenied 368 US 866 [1961]), since the defendant failed to show that he was substantiallyprejudiced thereby (see People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940 [1988]; People v Kline, 49 AD3d 665[2008]).

The defendant's contention raised in Point Three of his brief is unpreserved for appellatereview.

The defendant's remaining contention, raised for the first time in his reply brief, is notproperly before this Court. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.