| People v Durant |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08756 [112 AD3d 1366] |
| December 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vEverett M. Durant, Appellant. |
—[*1] Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Amanda L. Dreher of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi, J.), renderedJune 10, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in thesecond degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jurytrial of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). Viewing theevidence in light of the contested element of larcenous intent as charged to the jury (see generally People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's contention that theverdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). "Where, as here, witness credibility is of paramount importanceto the determination of guilt or innocence, the appellate court must give [g]reat deference. . . [to the] fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear thetestimony and observe demeanor" (People v McMillon, 77 AD3d 1375, 1376 [2010], lvdenied 16 NY3d 897 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]). While afinding that defendant did not have the requisite intent would not have beenunreasonable, "it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight itshould be accorded" (id.). The victim testified that defendant stole his walletduring a group assault on him, and the People presented evidence establishing thatdefendant "knowingly participated and continued to participate even after hiscompanion[s'] intentions [to take the victim's cell phone] became clear" and thus "shareda 'community of purpose' with his companion[s]" (People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830,832 [1988]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, County Court properly deniedhis request for an adverse inference charge concerning the failure of the police to recordhis interrogation electronically (see McMillon, 77 AD3d at 1375; People v Hammons, 68 AD3d1800, 1801 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 801 [2010]). Present—Smith,J.P., Fahey, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.