People v. Cooper

2017 NY Slip Op 316

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: January 18, 2017
• Docket: 2015-02006
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Cooper (2017 NY Slip Op 00316)

People v Cooper

2017 NY Slip Op 00316

Decided on January 18, 2017

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 January 18, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
SANDRA L. SGROI
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

2015-02006
(Ind. No. 2040N/13)

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

v

Warren Cooper, appellant.

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

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Daniel Bresnahan and Mary Faldich of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), rendered February 26, 2015, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (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), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25[2]), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 165.40), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[12]), 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), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear 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).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

LEVENTHAL, J.P., HALL, SGROI and DUFFY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court