| People v Guzman |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 09116 [134 AD3d 852] |
| December 9, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Hariz Guzman, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Laura Lieberman Cohen of counsel), forappellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, William H. Branigan, Gregory Radwan, and Ayelet Sela of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Lewis, J.), rendered January 17, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the second degree,grand larceny in the fourth degree, and reckless endangerment in the second degree, upona jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish hisguilt of robbery in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt because the Peoplefailed to establish that he forcibly stole the complainant's property (see Penal Law§§ 160.00, 160.10). However, that issue is not preserved for appellatereview, as he made only a general motion to dismiss at the close of the People's case(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Martinez, 116 AD3d983, 983 [2014]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that itwas legally sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant's contention that the testimony of the complainant was incredible as amatter of law is also unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hewitt, 82 AD3d1119, 1121 [2011]; Peoplev Carlucci, 80 AD3d 621, 622 [2011]). In any event, the complainant'stestimony was not incredible as a matter of law, as it was not manifestly untrue,physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory (see People v Mitchell, 68AD3d 1019, 1019 [2009]; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]).
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 factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear thetestimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004];People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Upon reviewing [*2]the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt ofall counts was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Mastro, J.P.,Dickerson, Roman and Maltese, JJ., concur.