| People v Vasquez |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 02715 [94 AD3d 915] |
| April 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JuanVasquez, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Hae Jin Liu and Steven A. Bender ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Zambelli, J.), rendered August 4, 2009, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substancein the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (twocounts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial,after a hearing (Molea, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was tosuppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, since the police had probable cause to arrest him, thesearch of his person was lawful as incident to that arrest (see People v Inge, 90 AD3d 675 [2011]; People v Blinker, 80 AD3d 619[2011]).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictionsis 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]).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The record as a wholedemonstrates that the defendant received meaningful representation (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Eng, Belen and Cohen,JJ., concur.