| People v Minter |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03503 [106 AD3d 934] |
| May 15, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Janvena C. Minter, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Lauren Tan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Condon, J.), rendered July 12, 2011, convicting her of grand larceny in the fourth degree(two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the admission of certain testimony from a detectivedeprived her of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]) and, in any event, is without merit. Contrary to the defendant's contention, thedetective did not give testimony that was the equivalent of an opinion asserting that thedefendant was guilty of the crimes charged in the indictment (see People v Kozlowski, 11NY3d 223, 240 [2008]; cf. People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431, 439 [1979]).Moreover, the detective did not impermissibly testify regarding the defendant'spost-arrest silence (cf. People v Conyers, 52 NY2d 454 [1981]).
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 jury's opportunityto view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; Peoplev Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.