| People v Sweeney |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03350 [106 AD3d 841] |
| May 8, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Christopher Sweeney, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(Jones, Jr., J.), rendered February 26, 2008, convicting him of unlawful surveillance inthe second degree (three counts), endangering the welfare of a child, and criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, after a nonjury trial, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event,viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility toconduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (seePeople 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 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should not have issued an orderof protection in favor of his children is unpreserved for appellate review because thedefendant failed to object to the order of protection at sentencing or move to amend theorder on this ground (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see also People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316-318 [2004]; People v Khan, 101 AD3d903 [2012]; People vRemington, 90 AD3d 678, 679 [2011]; People v Foster, 87 AD3d 299, 304 [2011]; People v Decker, 77 AD3d675 [2010]; People vJohnson, 16 AD3d 521, 522 [2005]). Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall andHinds-Radix, JJ., concur.