| People v Legette |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05190 [96 AD3d 1078] |
| June 27, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ronny Legette, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Yael V. Levy, Cristin N. Connell, andJoseph Mogelnicki of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz,J.), rendered September 7, 2010, as amended September 20, 2010, convicting him of assault inthe first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, certain statements made by a prospective juror whichwere the subject of the defendant's for-cause challenge to that prospective juror did not "rise tothe level of actual bias or otherwise indicate that [he] would be unable to render an impartialverdict" (People v Archer, 210 AD2d 241, 241 [1994]; see CPL 270.20 [1] [b];People v Glover, 69 AD3d 877,878 [2010]; People v Forino, 65AD3d 1259, 1260 [2009]; People vSmith, 48 AD3d 489 [2008]). Thus, the trial court properly denied the defendant'sfor-cause challenge to the juror.
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 prove, beyond areasonable doubt, that the defendant committed assault in the first degree (see Penal Law§ 120.10 [2]; People vLausane, 16 AD3d 523 [2005]; People v Rivera, 268 AD2d 538, 539 [2000];People v Wade, 187 AD2d 687 [1992]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility toconduct an 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 as to assault in the firstdegree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the trial court erredin permitting the physician who treated the victim at the emergency room, and sutured the10-inch laceration to the victim's face, to opine as to the origin of a "divot" in the victim's skull(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, thecontention is without merit, as [*2]the Supreme Court properlypermitted the testimony (see People vWest, 86 AD3d 583 [2011]; People v Prowse, 60 AD3d 703, 704 [2009]). Skelos, J.P.,Dickerson, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.