| People v Golger |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02137 [126 AD3d 914] |
| March 18, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Vachesla Golger, Also Known as Vacheslav,Appellant. |
Epstein & Conroy, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Jason W. Eldridge and Gary Conroy ofcounsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, KeithDolan, and Allison Ageyeva of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Tomei, J.), rendered October 7, 2013, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degreeand assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
An intoxication charge should be issued when, viewing the evidence in the lightmost favorable to the defendant, there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the recordfor a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to an element on that basis (see People v Beaty, 22 NY3d918, 921 [2013]; People v Farnsworth, 65 NY2d 734, 735 [1985]). Here, thedefendant did not demonstrate his entitlement to a charge on intoxication (see Peoplev Beaty, 22 NY3d at 921; People v Sirico, 17 NY3d 744, 745 [2011]; People vGaines, 83 NY2d 925, 927 [1994]; People v Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918, 920[1990]; cf. People vVelcher, 116 AD3d 799 [2014]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establishthe defendant's guilt of sexual abuse in the first degree and assault in the second degreebeyond a reasonable doubt (see CPL 70.10 [1]; Penal Law§§ 10.00 [9]; 120.05 [6]; 130.00 [3], [8]; 130.65 [1]; People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d445, 447 [2007]; People vSanti, 3 NY3d 234, 236 [2004]; People v Taylor, 94 NY2d 910, 911[2000]).
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of theweight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), wenevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hearthe testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004];People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here,we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal,Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.