| People v Reyes |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 00909 [169 AD3d 721] |
| February 6, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v FredyReyes, Appellant. |
Matthew Muraskin, Port Jefferson, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mark D. Cohen,J.), rendered November 2, 2016, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the seconddegree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourthdegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The record demonstrates that the defendant's express waiver of his right to be present at sidebarconferences (see People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247 [1992]) was made knowingly,voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 363, 375-378 [1996]).
The defendant's contention that the identification evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; Peoplev Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Calas, 134 AD3d 1043, 1045 [2015]; People v Mais, 133 AD3d 687, 688[2015]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (seePeople v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility toconduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342[2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses,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 record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those crimes was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial withoutconducting a Buford inquiry (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290 [1987]) of eachindividual juror is without merit (see People vMejias, 21 NY3d 73, 80 [2013]; People v Terrell, 149 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2017]). Dillon, J.P., Miller,LaSalle and Iannacci, JJ., concur.