| People v Price |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03189 [127 AD3d 995] |
| April 15, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Chris Price, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Tammy Linn of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Anastasia Spanakos of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Hollie, J.), rendered November 13, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the first degreeand robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecution failed to adduce legally sufficientevidence of his identity as the perpetrator of the crime is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Warren, 50 AD3d 706, 707 [2008]; People v McWilliams, 7 AD3d543 [2004]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that,contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish hisidentity as the man who robbed the victim at gunpoint. Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence(see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]; People v Mitchell, 120 AD3d1265 [2014]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity toview the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]; People v Mitchell, 120 AD3d at 1265). Upon reviewing the record here,we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.
The trial court admitted into evidence a photograph posted on the defendant's webpage approximately four months prior to the robbery, showing him holding a gun thatwas similar to the weapon used in the robbery. Contrary to the defendant's contention, thePeople laid a proper foundation for admission of the photograph, it was relevant to theissue of the defendant's identity as the gunman, and its probative value outweighed anyprejudicial effect (see People vClemmons, 83 AD3d 859 [2011]; People v Alston, 77 AD3d 762 [2010]; People v Webb, 60 AD3d1291 [2009]). Chambers, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.