| People v Rivera |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 00914 [125 AD3d 694] |
| February 4, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ciceron Rivera, Appellant. |
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Andrea M. DiGregorioand Pamela Kelly-Pincus of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County(Kase, J.), rendered September 27, 2012, convicting him of criminal contempt in the firstdegree, endangering the welfare of a child, unlawful fleeing a police officer in a motorvehicle in the third degree, and reckless driving, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that, contrary to the defendant's contention, itwas legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt ofcriminal contempt in the first degree. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conductan independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to viewthe witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to that count wasnot against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006], affd 7NY3d 911 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the trial court displayed bias in its treatment of thedefense is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Prado, 4 NY3d725, 726 [2004]; People vRodriguez, 111 AD3d 856, 859 [2013]; People v Bedell, 84 AD3d 1733, 1734 [2011]). In anyevent, the record does not support the defendant's claim of bias (see People vRodriguez, 111 AD3d at 859; People v Persaud, 98 AD3d 527, 528 [2012]; People v Argentieri, 66 AD3d558, 559 [2009]).
Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant was afforded meaningfulrepresentation, and, thus, was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (seePeople v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137[1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Eng, P.J., Dillon,Chambers and Duffy, JJ., concur.