| People v Goodman |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05800 [120 AD3d 587] |
| August 13, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v James Goodman, Appellant. |
Douglas G. Rankin, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, ThomasM. Ross, and Terrence F. Heller of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Tomei, J.), rendered February 28, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degreeand unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the identification evidence was legally insufficient tosupport his convictions of robbery in the first degree and unlawful imprisonment in thesecond degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Shearer, 114 AD3d708 [2014]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt.Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weightof the evidence (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 demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfiedthat the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
Upon our review of the issues preserved for appellate review that relate to the allegedfailure of the People to properly authenticate certain recordings of telephone calls madeby the defendant while he was incarcerated, we find the defendant's contentions withrespect to those issues to be without merit (see People v Vasser, 97 AD3d 767 [2012]; People v Collins, 90 AD3d1069 [2011]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Dillon,J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.