People v. Alba

Opinion

People v Alba

2026 NY Slip Op 04959

August 12, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Israel M. Alba, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 12, 2026

2024-03521, (Ind. No. 71864/22)

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

William G. Ford

Carl J. Landicino

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Richard E. Mischel, P.C., New York, NY, for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Sholom J. Twersky of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heidi Cesare, J.), rendered May 3, 2024, convicting him of assault in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was charged with assault in the third degree and related crimes arising out of a physical altercation with an Uber driver in Brooklyn in 2021. After a nonjury trial, the defendant was convicted of assault in the third degree.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant's justification defense and to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 120.00[1]; People v Casey, 200 AD3d 1002, 1002). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), 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; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). "[T]he appropriate standard for evaluating [a] weight of the evidence argument is the same, regardless of whether the factfinder was a judge or jury" (People v Rojas, 80 AD3d 782, 782 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v King, 85 AD3d 820, 821). Upon our review of the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

DUFFY, J.P., FORD, LANDICINO and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court