| People v Khan |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08552 [101 AD3d 903] |
| December 12, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Mohamed Khan, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Rebecca Height of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.),rendered May 11, 2010, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), criminalpossession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (threecounts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewing theevidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond areasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review ofthe weight of the 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 observedemeanor (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 the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant's contention that the duration of the orders of protection issued against himexceeded the maximum permissible period is unpreserved for appellate review because thedefendant did not raise this issue at sentencing or move to amend the final orders of protection onthis ground (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316-318 [2004]; People v Remington, 90 AD3d678, 679 [2011]; People vPeterkin, 27 AD3d 666, 667 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ.,concur.