| People v Myers |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03282 [117 AD3d 755] |
| May 7, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Cecil Myers, Appellant. |
Judah Maltz, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jason R. Richards and DonaldBerk of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Robbins, J.), rendered March 14, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the first degree(two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree(two counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree, and assault in the third degree, upon ajury 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 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]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effectiveassistance of counsel under the New York Constitution since, viewing defense counsel'sperformance in totality, counsel provided meaningful representation (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).Further, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under theUnited States Constitution (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668[1984]).
The defendant's contention that the testimony of certain prosecution witnessesimproperly bolstered the complainant's identification testimony is partially unpreservedfor appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Sealy, 35 AD3d 510, 510-511 [2006]). In anyevent, any error in admitting this testimony was harmless, since the other evidence of thedefendant's guilt, including the "clear and strong" identification testimony of thecomplaint, with whom the defendant had previously resided, was overwhelming, andthere was no significant probability that, but for the error, the jury would have acquittedthe defendant (People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584, 585 [1982] [internal quotationmarks omitted]; see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Capehart, 60 AD3d689, [*2]690 [2009]; People v Sealy, 35AD3d at 511). Dickerson, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.