People v. Brillant

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: October 22, 2014
• Docket: 2011-10424
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Brillant (2014 NY Slip Op 07173)

People v Brillant

2014 NY Slip Op 07173

Decided on October 22, 2014

Appellate Division, Second Department

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

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

Decided on October 22, 2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
SANDRA L. SGROI
JEFFREY A. COHEN
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

2011-10424
(Ind. No. 6894/09)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Lynda Brillant, appellant.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York N.Y. (Kathleen Whooley of counsel), for appellant.

Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Camille O'Hara Gillespie, and Avshalom Yotam of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of Supreme Court, Kings County (Ozzi, J.), rendered September 28, 2011, convicting her of assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review her contention that her conviction of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00[1]) was not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484). In any event, 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 prove the defendant's guilt of that crime 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 NY3d 342, 348), 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 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). 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 NY3d 633).

MASTRO, J.P., SGROI, COHEN and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court