| People v Allen |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04348 [107 AD3d 818] |
| June 12, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Hassan Allen, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Jeanette Lifschitz, and Emil Bricker of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Aloise, J.), rendered January 26, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish thathe possessed the gun recovered by the police is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]),we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant possessedthe gun (see People vAlmonte, 23 AD3d 392 [2005]). 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]). Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the testimony offered by thePeople's witnesses was not so improbable or unreliable that it could not be credited (see People v Fields, 28 AD3d789, 790 [2006]). Indeed, any discrepancies or inconsistencies in the testimony werematters to be considered by the jury in assessing the credibility of the witnesses (seePeople v Almonte, 23 AD3d at 393).
The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention, based onCPL 200.60 (3), that the Supreme Court failed to follow the proper procedures for use ofa prior conviction to elevate the level of a charged crime (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ward, 57 AD3d582, 583 [2008]; People v Santiago, 244 AD2d 263 [1997]). In any event,this contention is without merit. Since the defendant had previously stipulated to thecorrectness of his prior conviction, as enumerated in a special information filed by thePeople, and since defense counsel successfully moved, at the time of theSandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]), topreclude the People from making [*2]reference to thatprior conviction, there was no need for the court to offer the defendant anotheropportunity to admit that prior conviction (see People v Ward, 57 AD3d at 583;People v Santiago, 244 AD2d at 263; People v Reid, 232 AD2d 173[1996]; People v Cloyce, 220 AD2d 329 [1995]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Balkin, J.P., Hall, Lott andMiller, JJ., concur.