| People v Jones |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00940 [103 AD3d 753] |
| February 13, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Joseph Jones, Appellant. |
—[*1] Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbartand Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County(Collini, J.), rendered April 6, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upona jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the evidence waslegally insufficient to establish his guilt of burglary in the first degree (see CPL470.05 [2]; Penal Law § 140.30 [1]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Sweeney, 84 AD3d1123, 1123 [2011]). In any event, that claim is without merit (see People vSweeney, 84 AD3d at 1123).
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of theweight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord 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], certdenied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]; People v Hartman, 64 AD3d 1002 [2009]; People v Chowdhury, 22AD3d 596, 597 [2005]; People v Stoby, 4 AD3d 766 [2004]; People vKenward, 266 AD2d 155 [1999]).
The defendant's contention regarding the court's jury charge is not preserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see People v Mestres, 41 AD3d 618, 618 [2007]; cf. People v Rivera, 78 AD3d1203, 1203 [2010]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest ofjustice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; People v Mestres, 41 AD3dat 619; People v Curella, 296 AD2d 578, 578 [2002]).
Finally, counsel's failure to preserve the claims relating to the legal sufficiency of theevidence and the jury instruction did not, under the circumstances of this case, deprivethe defendant of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Turner, 46 AD3d 847, 848 [2007]; cf. People v Turner, 5 NY3d476, 480-481 [2005]; People v Alford, 33 AD3d 1014, 1016 [2006]). Balkin,J.P., Hall, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.