| People v Gurgov |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 05207 [129 AD3d 989] |
| June 17, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Emanuel Gurgov, Appellant. |
Emanuel Gurgov, Sonyea, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Daniel Bresnahan, and Deborah Wassel of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Griffin, J.), rendered July 25, 2013, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upona jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant's contention, anydiscrepancies in the complainant's testimony did not render such testimony incredible asa matter of law (see People vGreen, 107 AD3d 915 [2013]; People v Wilson, 50 AD3d 711 [2008]; People v Sedney, 6 AD3d632, 633 [2004]). Moreover, there is a valid line of reasoning and permissibleinferences from which a rational jury could have found that the defendant, with the intentto cause physical injury, and while acting in concert with his codefendants, caused suchinjury to the complainant by means of a dangerous instrument (see Penal Law§§ 20.00, 120.05 [2]).
In fulfilling 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 Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; Peoplev Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]). Regardless of whether the defendant was initially aware that two of hiscodefendants were armed with baseball bats, his continued participation in the assaultwas sufficient to support the conclusion that he intentionally aided in the assault with adangerous instrument (see Penal Law § 120.05 [2]; see alsoMatter of Juan J., 81 NY2d 739, 741 [1992]; People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830,832 [1988]). The inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony cited by the defendantwere not of such magnitude as to render the testimony incredible or unreliable (see People v Fernandez, 115AD3d 977 [2014]; People vGelmi, 113 AD3d 790 [2014]; People v Scipio, 61 AD3d 899 [2009]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Rivera, J.P., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.