| People v Williams |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 00625 [168 AD3d 1108] |
| January 30, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Terrell Williams, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Nao Terai of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Antara D. Kanth of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Stephen A.Knopf, J.), rendered May 20, 2016, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance inthe fifth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval,34 NY2d 371 [1974]), which permitted the prosecutor to inquire about the defendant's priorconviction for attempted robbery in the event that the defendant decided to testify. Evidence ofthis conviction was probative of the defendant's credibility because it bore on his willingness toplace his own interests above those of society (see People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292[1983]; People v Thomas, 8 AD3d506 [2004]; People v Cowan, 193 AD2d 753, 754 [1993]).
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 establishdefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conductan independent 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 he was deprived of a fair trial by improper remarks made bythe prosecutor during his summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see People vTonge, 93 NY2d 838 [1999]; Peoplev Dunning, 148 AD3d 1047 [2017]; People v Spencer, 87 AD3d 751, 753 [2011], affd 20 NY3d954 [2012]). In any event, this contention is without merit, since the comments alleged to beprejudicial were either fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawntherefrom, or a fair response to defense counsel's summation (see People v Ashwal, 39NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People vMarcus, 112 AD3d 652 [2013]; People v Rogers, 106 AD3d 1029 [2013]; People v Birot, 99 AD3d 933[2012]). Scheinkman, P.J., Leventhal, Maltese and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.