| People v Lenihan |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01289 [125 AD3d 788] |
| February 11, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Karon Lenihan, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Barry Stendig of counsel), for appellant, andappellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Sharon Y. Brodt, Johnnette Traill, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Gavrin, J.), rendered September 21, 2010, convicting him of murder in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to present legally sufficientevidence to sustain his conviction of murder in the second degree is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see Peoplev Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility toconduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunityto view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [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 defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain of theprosecutor's summation remarks is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]). In any event, the prosecutor's comments did not deprive the defendant of afair trial, as the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, responsive to thedefense summation, and remained within the broad bounds of rhetorical commentpermissible in closing arguments (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399[1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v McGowan, 111AD3d 850, 851 [2013]).
The record shows that defense counsel provided meaningful representation to thedefendant and, thus, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel(see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d137 [1981]).
[*2] The defendant's remainingcontentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.