| People v Roiz |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08769 [101 AD3d 1048] |
| December 19, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Domingo Roiz, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and CourtneyWeinberger of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins,J.), rendered April 7, 2011, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possessionof a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictionis 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 received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143,152, 156 [2005]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]; People v Taberas, 60 AD3d 791,793 [2009]).
The defendant's contention that the sentence imposed penalized him for exercising his rightto trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Osorio, 49 AD3d 562, 564 [2008]; People v Hargroves, 27 AD3d 765[2006]), and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Ramos, 74 AD3d 991, 992 [2010]; People vHargroves, 27 AD3d at 766). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (seePeople v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.