| People v James (Robert) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 50575(U) [31 Misc 3d 130(A)] |
| Decided on April 1, 2011 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County
(Joseph A. Zayas, J.), rendered November 10, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, after a
nonjury trial, of attempted endangering the welfare of a child and public lewdness.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant was charged with sexual abuse in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.55), endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]) and public lewdness (Penal Law § 245.00). Prior to trial, the People reduced the charge of endangering the welfare of a child to attempted endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 260.10 [1]). Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of attempted endangering the welfare of a child and public lewdness, and was acquitted of the charge of sexual abuse in the third degree.
Defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]; People v Williams, 38 AD3d 925 [2007]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, of attempted endangering the welfare of a child and public lewdness.
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 accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor and assess their credibility (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Weston, J.P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 01, 2011