People v Gonzalez
2012 NY Slip Op 02515 [94 AD3d 775]
April 3, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 23, 2012


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

[*1]Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure of counsel; Meghan L.McCarthy on the brief), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C.Abbot, and Thomas J. Koffer of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.),rendered June 2, 2010, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, burglary in thethird degree, possession of burglar's tools, criminal trespass in the third degree, and criminalmischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence of identification was legally insufficient tosupport his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Reid, 82 AD3d 1268[2011]; People v Small, 74 AD3d843, 845 [2010]; People vJordan, 44 AD3d 875 [2007]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's identity as one of theperpetrators of the crimes of which he was convicted (see People v Johnson, 90 AD3d 676 [2011]; People v Carter, 44 AD3d 677,679 [2007]; People v Almonte, 23AD3d 392, 393 [2005]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342,348-349 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'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]). Balkin, J.P., Eng, Hall and Sgroi, 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.