| People v Harris |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01767 [115 AD3d 872] |
| March 19, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Davon Harris, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano andEmil Bricker of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Zayas, J.), rendered October 18, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the second degreeand petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied hischallenge for cause to a prospective juror. The record does not support a finding that theprospective juror possessed "a state of mind that [was] likely to preclude him fromrendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial" (CPL 270.20[1] [b]; see People vLegette, 96 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2012]; People v Pemberton, 305 AD2d430 [2003]).
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 opportunity of thefinder of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (seePeople v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004];People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here,we are satisfied 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 the effective assistance of counsel (see Peoplev Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).The defendant has failed to demonstrate "the absence of strategic or other legitimateexplanations" for counsel's alleged shortcoming (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705,709 [1988]; see People vCaban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Baugh, 91 AD3d 965, 966 [2012]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contentions areunpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to reach them in the exercise of ourinterest of justice jurisdiction. Rivera, J.P., Lott, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.