From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pearsall

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Apr 17, 2019
171 A.D.3d 1096 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2017–03032 Ind. No. 1420/13

04-17-2019

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Diya J. PEARSALL, appellant.

Leon H. Tracy, Jericho, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Kevin C. King and James C. Manning of counsel), for respondent.


Leon H. Tracy, Jericho, NY, for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Kevin C. King and James C. Manning of counsel), for respondent.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review, as his motion to dismiss made at the close of evidence was not sufficiently specific (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; 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 jury'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 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt 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 ).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his trial counsel's failure to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v. McGee, 20 N.Y.3d 513, 518, 964 N.Y.S.2d 73, 986 N.E.2d 907 ; People v. Foster, 153 A.D.3d 853, 855, 60 N.Y.S.3d 372 ). In addition, counsel's failure to seek an adverse inference charge did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).

LEVENTHAL, J.P., ROMAN, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Pearsall

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Apr 17, 2019
171 A.D.3d 1096 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

People v. Pearsall

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Diya J. Pearsall…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Apr 17, 2019

Citations

171 A.D.3d 1096 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 2904
98 N.Y.S.3d 307

Citing Cases

People v. Maschoun

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of resisting arrest.The defendant's contention that his…

People v. Youngberg

The defendant's contention that his remaining convictions are not supported by legally sufficient evidence is…