Opinion
2013-01735 Ind. No. 20200/12.
01-20-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Abraham BROWN, appellant.
Jeffrey M. Okun, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Amy Appelbaum, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Jeffrey M. Okun, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Amy Appelbaum, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Morgenstern, J.), rendered January 7, 2013, convicting him of attempted assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree, and harassment in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the verdict is unsupported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 2 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of attempted assault in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.001 ), menacing in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.15), and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.261 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.155; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), 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 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
“The right to effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions” (People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698; see U.S. Const. Sixth Amend.; N.Y. Const., art. I, § 6; People v. Fields, 109 A.D.3d 553, 554, 970 N.Y.S.2d 469). Here, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the New York Constitution because, viewing defense counsel's performance in totality, counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400; People v. Fields, 109 A.D.3d at 554, 970 N.Y.S.2d 469). Further, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's evidentiary rulings deprived him of his right to present a defense is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see CPL 470.052; People v. Smith, 123 A.D.3d 1148, 1149, 999 N.Y.S.2d 525).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.