| People v Lebron |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 02899 [171 AD3d 1092] |
| April 17, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Julio Lebron, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Tammy E. Linn and William Kastin of counsel), forappellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, Joseph N. Ferdenzi, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (DanielLewis, J.), both rendered August 17, 2015, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (twocounts), criminal trespass in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree (twocounts), and petit larceny (two counts) under indictment No. 791/14, and burglary in the seconddegree and petit larceny under indictment No. 1733/14, upon jury verdicts, and imposingsentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictionsbecause the People failed to prove his identity as the perpetrator of the burglaries and relatedcrimes in this case. However, 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 the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of all of the crimes of which he was convictedbeyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview 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 verdicts of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in denying his discovery requests pursuant to CPL 240.40 for material that was not inthe possession or control of the People (see People v Colavito, 87 NY2d 423, 428 [1996];People v Washington, 86 NY2d 189, 191-193 [1995]; People v Beckham, 142 AD3d 556 [2016]).
The defendant's right to confrontation (see US Const Sixth Amend) was not violatedby the testimony of a criminalist employed by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of theCity of New York. The criminalist performed his own analysis of certain DNA profiles,concluded that there was a DNA match, and issued the final report, which was challenged oncross-examination (see People vPascall, 164 AD3d 1265, 1266 [2018]; People v Henderson, 142 AD3d 1104, 1105 [2016]; People v Beckham, 142 AD3d556 [2016]). The criminalist's testimony regarding his review and analysis of the case filesindicated that he independently analyzed the raw data, rather than functioned as " 'aconduit for the conclusions of others' " (People v Austin, 30 NY3d 98, 105 [2017], quoting People v John, 27 NY3d 294, 315[2016]).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding expert testimony on theissue of eyewitness reliability because the proposed testimony was not relevant to the specificcircumstances of this case (see People vAllen, 53 AD3d 582, 583-584 [2008], affd 13 NY3d 251 [2009]; see also People v Rosario, 100 AD3d660, 661 [2012]; see generallyPeople v LeGrand, 8 NY3d 449, 452 [2007]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Austin, Miller andMaltese, JJ., concur.