| People v Bochi |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05349 [119 AD3d 811] |
| July 16, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Andres Bochi, 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(Modica, J.), rendered November 23, 2011, convicting him of assault in the seconddegree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony that the defendant previouslyattempted to stab the complainant was properly admitted because it was probative of thedefendant's intent, and rebutted the defense of justification (see People v Williams, 97AD3d 769, 770 [2012]; People v Martinez, 53 AD3d 508, 509 [2008]; People v James, 19 AD3d616 [2005]; People vLawrence, 4 AD3d 436 [2004]; People v Williams, 296 AD2d 560[2002]). Moreover, the probative value of that evidence outweighed any prejudice to thedefendant (see People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359-360 [1981]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to disprove hisjustification defense beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v King, 110 AD3d 1100, 1101 [2013]; People v Landri, 104 AD3d791 [2013]; People vHuddleston, 101 AD3d 901 [2012]; People v DeFilippo, 100 AD3d 767, 768 [2012]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see Peoplev Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient todisprove the defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony,and observe their demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004];People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record, weare satisfied that the rejection of the justification defense and the verdict of guilt were notagainst the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80,85-86 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.