| People v Portilloaguilar |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 06119 [164 AD3d 1376] |
| September 19, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Elvi Portilloaguilar, Appellant. |
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Louis E. Mazzola of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Grazia DiVincenzo of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (StephenBraslow, J.), rendered June 28, 2016, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the prosecution's failure to timely disclosethe statements of two codefendants constituted a Brady violation (see Brady vMaryland, 373 US 83 [1963]) because there was no reasonable probability that, had theevidence been disclosed to the defense, the outcome of the trial would have been different (see People v Fuentes, 12 NY3d259, 263 [2009]; People v Hale,143 AD3d 910, 910-911 [2016]).
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 murder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence(see CPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight ofthe evidence (see People v Romero,7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the admission of evidenceof certain uncharged crimes (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]) is unpreservedfor appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Roman, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.