| People v Massillon |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02114 [137 AD3d 1169] |
| March 23, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Haley Massillon, Appellant. |
Carol E. Castillo, E. Setauket, NY, for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, SuffolkCounty (Doyle, J.), rendered October 5, 2010, convicting him of assault in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is only partiallypreserved for appellate review (see People v Krut, 133 AD3d 781, 783 [2015]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establishthe defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibilityto conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor(see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the verdict ofguilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the County Court failed toadequately explore his waiver of an alleged conflict of interest arising from the pastrepresentation of the complainant by the defendant's trial attorney's office, the Legal AidSociety, in an unrelated criminal matter (see People v Thomas, 98 AD3d 594, 595 [2012]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, concerning certain evidentiary rulings, arelargely unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, either are without merit orconstitute harmless error. Balkin, J.P., Roman, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.