People v. Mathura

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: April 13, 2016
• Docket: 2014-00332
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Mathura (2016 NY Slip Op 02852)

People v Mathura

2016 NY Slip Op 02852

Decided on April 13, 2016

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 April 13, 2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
MARK C. DILLON
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

2014-00332
(Ind. No. 2505/12)

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

v

Kamelita Mathura, appellant.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Nao Terai of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Ayelet Sela of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered December 20, 2013, convicting her of burglary in the second degree, possession of burglar's tools, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

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 establish the defendant's guilt of each 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), 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 on each count was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

MASTRO, J.P., DILLON, HINDS-RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court