People v. Ransom

2018 NY Slip Op 5871

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: August 22, 2018
• Docket: 2013-09989
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Ransom (2018 NY Slip Op 05871)

People v Ransom

2018 NY Slip Op 05871

Decided on August 22, 2018

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 August 22, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
HECTOR D. LASALLE
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

2013-09989
(Ind. No. 3234/13)

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

v

Christopher Ransom, appellant.

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Laura B. Indellicati of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gene Lopez, J.), rendered October 17, 2013, convicting him of criminal impersonation in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal impersonation in the second degree (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895). 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 the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 190.25[2]; People v Golb, 23 NY3d 455, 465). 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644; People v Golb, 23 NY3d at 465; People v Hooks, 71 AD3d 1184; People v Mitchell, 254 AD2d 830).

BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, LASALLE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court