| People v Hankerson |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 02679 [149 AD3d 778] |
| April 5, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Elliot Hankerson, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Erin R. Tomlinson of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, Joseph N. Ferdenzi, and Jonathan V. Brewer of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.),rendered March 16, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree because theprosecution failed to establish his identity as the perpetrator of those crimes is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Smith, 135 AD3d 970,971 [2016]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish his identity as the perpetrator. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342,348-349 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view thewitnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383,410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the recordhere, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor made improper comments on summation ispartially unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not object to the majority ofthe comments he now challenges (seePeople v Herring, 119 AD3d 958, 958-959 [2014]). In any event, any impropercomments did not, singly or in combination, deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Bajana, 82 AD3d1111, 1112 [2011]; People vGarcia-Villegas, 78 AD3d 727, 728 [2010]). Defense counsel's failure to object toallegedly improper comments made by the prosecutor on summation did not deprive thedefendant of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Bajana, 82 AD3d at 1112;People v Lopez, 69 AD3d 958,958 [2010]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court gave the jury inadequate instructionsregarding the burden of proof and reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vLove, 37 AD3d 618, 619 [2007]). In any event, the jury instructions, taken as a whole,conveyed the correct standard (see People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821 [1995]; People v King, 73 AD3d 1083,1084 [2010]; People v Coles, 62AD3d 1022, 1023 [2009]). Since the instructions were adequate, defense counsel's failure toobject to the challenged portions of the court's charge to the jury did not constitute ineffectiveassistance of counsel (see People vMartin, 141 AD3d 734, 735 [2016]; People v Delmas, 115 AD3d 758, 758 [2014]). Mastro, J.P.,Chambers, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.