| People v Isaac |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02110 [137 AD3d 1164] |
| March 23, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Sonia Isaac, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Rahshanda Sibley of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Tina Grillo of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Zayas, J.), rendered November 8, 2013, convicting her of robbery in the second degree,robbery in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in theseventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove her identity as one of theperpetrators of the subject robbery beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10[1995]; People v Wiggs,130 AD3d 659, 659 [2015]; People v Harris, 129 AD3d 990, 990-991 [2015]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see Peoplev Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish the defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d80 [2004]; People vJohn, 51 AD3d 819, 820 [2008]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility toconduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunityto view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as torobbery in the second and third degrees was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that she was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarksmade by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.15 [2]; People vRivera, 130 AD3d 655, 656 [2015]; People v Marshall, 43 AD3d 1184 [2007]). In any event,the remarks were responsive to arguments and theories presented during the defensesummation (see People vMarcus, 112 AD3d 652 [2013]; People v Rogers, 106 AD3d 1029 [2013]; People v Moore, 29 AD3d825 [2006]; People vBarber, 13 AD3d 898, 900 [2004]; People v McHarris, 297 AD2d 824[2002]), or constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v Hawley, 112AD3d 968, 969 [2013]; People v Hoke, 111 AD3d 959, 960 [2013]). Since thechallenged summation remarks were not improper, defense counsel's failure to object tothe prosecutor's summation comments did not deprive the defendant of the effectiveassistance of [*2]counsel (see People v McGowan, 111AD3d 850, 851 [2013]; People v Friel, 53 AD3d 667, 668 [2008]). Mastro, J.P.,Chambers, Roman and Barros, JJ., concur.