| People v Vasser |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05661 [97 AD3d 767] |
| July 18, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v NigelVasser, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and MerriTurk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.),rendered June 30, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in thesecond degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant had a hostile relationship with an individual who went by the name "Buddha,"who was a member of a rival gang. On the day of the shooting which gave rise to the instantcharges, witnesses saw the defendant hold a gun with his arm extended, point it at Buddha, andfire several shots at him. Buddha ran and hid behind a building; after a pause, the defendantresumed shooting, striking a bystander once in the head and causing her death.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that thedefendant's guilt of murder in the second degree was established by legally sufficient evidence(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]). The element of intent was establishedby evidence that the defendant pointed a loaded firearm at Buddha and fired multiple shots (see People v Mei Ying Wang, 33AD3d 820, 821 [2006]; People v Braithwaite, 286 AD2d 507 [2001]; People vColon, 275 AD2d 797 [2000]). The defendant's guilt of attempted murder in the seconddegree was also established by legally sufficient evidence (see People v Nedd, 90 AD3d 1076 [2011]; People vHernandez, 257 AD2d 664 [1999]).
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight ofthe evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observetheir demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946[2004]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt of murder inthe second degree and attempted murder in the second degree were not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633, 643 [2006]).
Recordings of telephone conversations which the defendant made while he was being [*2]held at Rikers Island, in which he discussed the shooting, wereadmitted into evidence at trial. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People established thefoundation for the admission of those recordings through the testimony of an individual familiarwith the record-keeping practices of the Department of Corrections (see People v Collins, 90 AD3d1069 [2011]; People vWilliams, 55 AD3d 1398 [2008]).
The Supreme Court properly imposed consecutive sentences for the defendant's convictionsof murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree (see People v McKnight, 16 NY3d43 [2010]; People v Bonilla, 57AD3d 400, 401-402 [2008]). Moreover, the sentences imposed for all the convictions werenot excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83-86 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal,Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.