| People v Gueye |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 07682 [122 AD3d 768] |
| November 12, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Khadim Gueye, Appellant. |
Joseph F. DeFelice, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellanoand Daniel Bresnahan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Roman, J.), rendered October 23, 2006, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourthdegree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court improperly discharged a sworn jurorand replaced him with an alternate. The defendant failed to preserve for appellate reviewhis contention that the Supreme Court did not make a "reasonably thorough inquiry"(CPL 270.35 [2] [a]) into the unavailability of the juror, because he did not object to thesufficiency of the court's inquiry or request that any further inquiry be made (see People v King, 110 AD3d1005, 1006 [2013], lv granted 23 NY3d 1022 [2014]; People v Morales, 87 AD3d1165, 1166 [2011]; Peoplev Settles, 28 AD3d 591, 591 [2006]). In any event, contrary to the defendant'scontention, the Supreme Court conducted a reasonably thorough inquiry into the juror'sunavailability and providently exercised its discretion in replacing the juror afterdetermining that the juror would not appear within the two-hour time period set forth inCPL 270.35 (2) (see People v Jeanty, 94 NY2d 507 [2000]). The defendant'sconstitutional claim on this matter is also unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Ballard, 51 AD3d1034, 1035-1036 [2008]; People v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]) and,in any event, without merit (see People v Jeanty, 94 NY2d at 517; People vBallard, 51 AD3d at 1036).
In fulfilling 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 demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; Peoplev Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.