People v. Stroman

Mar 3, 2009
Versions:60 A.D.3d 708
874 N.Y.S.2d 532

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant‘s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the identification evidence was preserved for appellate review (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56 [2001]; People v Beriguete, 51 AD3d 939 [2008]; People v Mendez, 34 AD3d 697 [2006]). That challenge, however, is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt 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 [2007]), 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 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). 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 [2006]). The discrepancies and inconsistencies between the identification testimony of the complainant and a witness and statements in the police reports were properly considered by the jury (see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80 [2004]; People v Colon, 42 AD3d 549 [2007]; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392 [2005]; People v Fields, 28 AD3d 789 [2006]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Eng, JJ., concur.