| People v Tockash |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08772 [101 AD3d 1052] |
| December 19, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v William Tockash, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Barbara Kornblauof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz,J.), rendered April 8, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the thirddegree, coercion in the first degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to chargecoercion in the second degree as a lesser-included offense of coercion in the first degree (seePeople v Discala, 45 NY2d 38 [1978]; People v Eboli, 34 NY2d 281 [1974]).
The defendant's contention that his conviction of coercion in the first degree was notsupported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]) and, in any event, is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorableto the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legallysufficient to establish his guilt of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfillingour responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (seeCPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to thejury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (seePeople v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power(see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to coercion in the firstdegree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Similarly, contrary tothe defendant's contention, the verdict of guilt as to criminal possession of a weapon in the thirddegree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for amistrial on the ground of alleged juror misconduct in light of the fact that juror number eightprofessed her ability to keep an open mind and to base her decision on the evidence and the lawas instructed by the court (see People vElias, 90 AD3d 947, 947-948 [2011]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreservedfor appellate review, and, in any event, are without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin, Lott andRoman, JJ., concur.