| People v King |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05355 [119 AD3d 819] |
| July 16, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jamir King, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Daniel Bresnahan, and Mariana Zelig of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(McGann, J.), rendered May 10, 2012, convicting him of assault in the first degree andcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establishthe defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibilityto conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (seePeople v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was notagainst the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The trial court did not err in permitting the People to impeach one of their ownwitnesses with his prior written statement and grand jury testimony (see CPL60.35). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the witness's testimony tended to disprovethe People's case and affirmatively damaged the People's position (see People v Clark, 37 AD3d487, 488 [2007]; People v Faulkner, 220 AD2d 525, 526 [1995]; Peoplev Bumpus, 163 AD2d 484 [1990]).
The defendant's challenge to certain comments made by the prosecutor onsummation is unpreserved for appellate review, as he registered only a general one-wordobjection to one of the comments, and failed to object at all to the remaining comments(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Evans, 116 AD3d 879 [2014]; People v Allen, 114 AD3d958, 959 [2014]). In any event, the remarks were fair response to defense counsel'ssummation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Rogers, 106 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2013]; People v Birot, 99 AD3d933 [2012]). Dillon, J.P., Lott, Austin and Barros, JJ., concur.