| People v Ellis |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 08434 [133 AD3d 777] |
| November 18, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Laval Ellis, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen Whooley and Melissa Horlick ofcounsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, DianeR. Eisner, and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott,J.), rendered September 9, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon inthe second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence.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]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the fact that he was acquitted ofmurder in the second degree did not undermine the weight of the evidence supporting theverdict convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (see People v Mazyck, 118AD3d 728 [2014]; see alsoPeople v Abraham, 22 NY3d 140, 146-147 [2013]; People v Rayam, 94NY2d 557, 562-563 [2000]; People v Alcindor, 118 AD3d 621 [2014]).
The defendant's claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made bythe prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Herring, 119AD3d 958, 958-959 [2014]; People v Alleyne, 114 AD3d 804, 805 [2014]), and wedecline to review it in the interest of justice. Moreover, contrary to the defendant'scontention, defense counsel's failure to object to the challenged summation remarks didnot constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Stevenson, 129AD3d 998, [2015]; People vMcGowan, 111 AD3d 850, 851 [2013]; People v Brown, 106 AD3d 754, 755 [2013]; People v Torres, 72 AD3d709, 709 [2010]). The record reveals that defense counsel provided meaningfulrepresentation (see People vTaylor, 1 NY3d 174, 174 [2003]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708,712 [1998]; People vWilliams, 123 AD3d 1152, 1154 [2014]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Chambers and LaSalle, JJ., concur.