| People v Yusuf |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04973 [119 AD3d 619] |
| July 2, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Azeeze Yusuf, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Mark W. Vorkink of counsel), forappellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Cooperman, J.), rendered March 13, 2008, convicting him of assault in the seconddegree, endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal possession of a weapon in thefourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
To the extent that the defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient toestablish his intent to cause the complainant physical injury so as to support hisconviction of assault in the second degree, that contention is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Campbell, 83 AD3d729, 729-730 [2011]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorableto the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find thatit was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendantintended to cause physical injury to the complainant and his guilt of assault in the seconddegree (see Penal Law §§ 10.00 [9]; 120.05 [2]; People v King, 85 AD3d820 [2011]; People vBritton, 49 AD3d 893 [2008]). Moreover, upon our independent reviewpursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied hisBatson challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]). The SupremeCourt's determination that the explanations proffered by the People for exercisingperemptory challenges to two black venirepersons were not pretextual is entitled to greatdeference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by therecord (see Snyder v Louisiana, 552 US 472, 477 [2008]; People vSimmons, 79 NY2d 1013, 1015 [1992]; People v Hurdle, 106 AD3d 1100, 1101 [2013]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the circumstances of this case, wherethe complainant's bias, hostility, and motive to lie were apparent to the jury through othermeans, the defendant was not deprived of his right to confront witnesses as a result of theSupreme Court's preclusion of certain lines of questioning during the cross examinationof the complainant (see People vCorby, 6 NY3d 231, 234-236 [2005]; People v McMahon, 248 AD2d642, 643 [1998]).
[*2] The defendant'schallenge to various remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreservedfor appellate review, as the defendant failed to object to any of the challenged summationremarks (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Jeudy, 115 AD3d982, 983 [2014]). In any event, the remarks were either fair comment on theevidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom or responsive to defensecounsel's summation (seePeople v Bridges, 114 AD3d 960 [2014]; People v Wingfield, 113 AD3d 798, 799 [2014]; People v Hawley, 112 AD3d968, 969 [2013]).
The defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was improperly based oncrimes of which he was acquitted is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]; People vJorgensen, 113 AD3d 793, 795 [2014]; People v Harris, 101 AD3d 900 [2012]). In any event, thecontention is without merit.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.