People v. Owen

2026 NY Slip Op 01230

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: March 4, 2026
• Docket: Ind. No. 70449/20
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Owen (2026 NY Slip Op 01230)

People v Owen

2026 NY Slip Op 01230

Decided on March 4, 2026

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 March 4, 2026 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
LARA J. GENOVESI, J.P.
WILLIAM G. FORD
CARL J. LANDICINO
SUSAN QUIRK, JJ.

2024-00949
(Ind. No. 70449/20)

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

v

Michael Owen, appellant.

Joseph A. Hanshe, Sayville, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and Kevin C. King of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert A. McDonald, J.), rendered January 11, 2024, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove his identity as the perpetrator is unpreserved for appellate review inasmuch as the defendant failed to move for a trial order of dismissal on the basis of that specific contention (see People v Benn, 177 AD3d 759, 761-762; People v Jenkins, 55 AD3d 850, 850). 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 establish the defendant's identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Lockley, 200 AD3d 117, 118-119; People v Loliscio, 187 AD2d 172, 174-176). 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, 348-349), 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 Key, 223 AD3d 755, 755; People v Loliscio, 187 AD2d at 176-178).

GENOVESI, J.P., FORD, LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court