| People v Williams |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 00198 [146 AD3d 821] |
| January 11, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Patrick Williams, Appellant. |
Foley Griffin, LLP, Garden City, NY (Brian J. Griffin of counsel), for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Laurie K.Gibbons of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Honorof, J.), rendered September 30, 2014, convicting him of conspiracy in the fourthdegree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In July 2010, the defendant was charged with grand larceny, conspiracy, and relatedcrimes, all arising from his alleged participation, with several codefendants, in abid-rigging scheme involving the New Cassel Revitalization Project, an initiativeintended to effectuate the development of eight sites in the downtown corridor of NewCassel. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of two counts of conspiracy in thefourth degree.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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 [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 was notagainst the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that his conviction of conspiracy to commit grand larcenyis repugnant to his acquittal of grand larceny in the first and second degrees isunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vOreckinto, 236 AD2d 635 [1997]). In any event, the contention is without merit, asthe crime of conspiracy is an offense separate from the crime that is the object of theconspiracy (see People v McGee, 49 NY2d 48, 57 [1979]; People vTorres, 118 AD2d 821 [1986]).
The defendant waived his contention that the trial court violated the continuous[*2]deliberation rule set forth in CPL 310.10 (see People v Garcia, 24 AD3d308, 309 [2005]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Hall, Romanand Connolly, JJ., concur.