| People v Garcia |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 06936 [165 AD3d 976] |
| October 17, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Wilson Garcia, Appellant. |
Martin Geoffrey Goldberg, Franklin Square, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Kevin C. King and Michael J. Balch ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Teresa K.Corrigan, J.), rendered November 22, 2016, convicting him of assault in the first degree (twocounts), assault in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts),robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon inthe fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that certain challenged testimony constituted improper bolsteringis unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not object to the testimony on thisground (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Moore, 89 AD3d 769, 769-770 [2011]; People v Bryan, 50 AD3d 1049,1050 [2008]). In any event, the challenged testimony was properly admitted and did notconstitute improper bolstering (seePeople v Spicola, 16 NY3d 441, 452-453 [2011]; People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501,510-511 [1995]; People v Moore, 89 AD3d at 769-770).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly admitted into evidencetestimony regarding certain statements made by the defendant, as those statements constitutedadoptive admissions of the defendant (see People v Campney, 94 NY2d 307, 311-312[1999]).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, andobserve demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People v Bleakley,69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict ofguilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Leventhal, J.P., Barros,Brathwaite Nelson and Iannacci, JJ., concur.