| People v Delgado |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05583 [109 AD3d 483] |
| August 7, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Delgado, Appellant. |
—[*1] Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbartand Michael Shollar of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County(Rooney, J.), rendered June 13, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the first degree,robbery in the first degree, and attempted rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and attempted rapein the first degree because the prosecution failed to establish his identity as theperpetrator of those crimes is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Reid, 82 AD3d 1268 [2011]). In any event,viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Amico, 78 AD3d 1190 [2010]; People v Scott, 65 AD3d707 [2009]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to viewthe witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vBleakley, 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]).
The defendant was not deprived of a fair trial when the Supreme Court denied hisrequest to include in the jury charge the fact that the victim had initially made aphotographic identification of another individual before identifying the defendant(see People v Melendez, 182 AD2d 644, 645 [1992]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos,Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.