| People v Smith |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03024 [138 AD3d 1038] |
| April 20, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Taisha Smith, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Jonathan M. Kratter and Erica Horwitz ofcounsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Hollie, J.), rendered February 29, 2012, convicting her of assault in the first degree (twocounts), assault in the second degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a weaponin the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant preserved for appellate review her contention that the evidence waslegally insufficient to establish that she committed assault in the first degree and assaultin the second degree as to one victim, partially preserved for appellate review hercontention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that she committedassault in the second degree as to another victim, and failed to preserve for appellatereview her contentions that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that shecommitted assault in the second degree as to the third victim, and that the third victimsuffered physical injury (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People vGray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Edwards, 81 AD3d 848 [2011]). In any event,viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree as to thefirst victim, assault in the second degree as to the second victim, and assault in thesecond degree as to the third victim. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conductan independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity toview the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt as to thosecrimes were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
We have no basis upon which to consider any arguments in an as-yet to be filed briefof a codefendant. Dillon, J.P., Austin, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.