| People v Lazaro |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01670 [125 AD3d 1007] |
| February 25, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Nayely Lazaro, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, LoriGlachman, and Claibourne Henry of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Riviezzo, J.), rendered December 11, 2012, convicting her of assault in the seconddegree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the admission into evidence ofexpert testimony regarding the identifiers and practices of a certain gang, as that evidencewas probative of the defendant's motive and provided necessary background to explain tothe jury the relationship between the defendant, the codefendant, and the complainants(see People v Guevara, 96AD3d 781 [2012]; People vCruz, 46 AD3d 567 [2007]; People v Ramirez, 23 AD3d 500, 501 [2005]; People v Filipe, 7 AD3d539, 540 [2004]). The probative value of this evidence outweighed any prejudice tothe defendant (see People vGuevara, 96 AD3d 781 [2012]; People v Cruz, 46 AD3d 567 [2007]; People vRamirez, 23 AD3d at 501).
The defendant's claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to support herconviction of assault in the second degree, based upon accessorial liability, isunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d484, 491-492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorableto the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find thatit was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of that crime beyond areasonable doubt (see Penal Law §§ 20.00, 120.05 [2]; People v Ramos, 74 AD3d991, 992 [2010]; People v Mayorga, 273 AD2d 480 [2000]). Additionally, infulfilling 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 Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers andRoman, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 38 Misc 3d 697.]