| People v Joseph |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01193 [114 AD3d 878] |
| February 19, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ricardo Joseph, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County(Hayes, J.), rendered December 21, 2007, convicting him of assault in the second degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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]).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to provide acircumstantial evidence charge to the jury is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People vClark, 100 AD3d 1013 [2012]). In any event, since the People's case against thedefendant consisted of both direct and circumstantial evidence, he was not entitled to acircumstantial evidence charge (see People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990, 992[1993]; People v Clark, 100AD3d 1013 [2012]; Peoplev Davis, 83 AD3d 860, 861 [2011]; People v Garson, 69 AD3d 650, 651-652 [2010]).
The defendant's contention that reversal is required because of improper remarksmade by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (seePeople v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]; People v Read, 97 AD3d 702 [2012]; People v Adams, 93 AD3d734 [2012]; People vGill, 54 AD3d 965, 966 [2008]), and, in any event, without merit (see People v Gopaul, 112AD3d 966 [2013]; People vMolinaro, 62 AD3d 724 [2009]).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147[1981]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contention is withoutmerit. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.