| People v Johnson |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02786 [127 AD3d 785] |
| April 1, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Maurice Johnson, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Lauren E. Jones of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Griffin, J.), rendered October 11, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is only partiallypreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Maldonado, 119AD3d 610 [2014]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of two counts of criminal possession ofa weapon in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law§ 265.03 [1] [b]; [3]; People v Petitbrun, 123 AD3d 1057 [2014]; People v Jones, 118 AD3d912 [2014]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied thatthe verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during hissummation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is largely unpreserved forappellate review (see People vJorgensen, 113 AD3d 793 [2014]). In any event, the challenged summationremarks were fair comment on the evidence, constituted a fair response to defensecounsel's summation, or otherwise do not warrant a reversal (see People v Harris, 117 AD3d847 [2014]).
The defendant's contention that his right to confrontation was violated (seeCrawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is unpreserved for appellate review and,in any event, without merit (seePeople v Tucker, 117 AD3d 1090 [2014]; People v Fucito, 108 AD3d 777 [2013]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Halland Maltese, JJ., concur.