Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of robbery in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492; People v Laviscount, 57 AD3d 1007, 1008). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see Penal Law § 160.00; § 160.10 [2]; People v Mattis, 46 AD3d 929, 931-932). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410, cert denied 542 US 946; 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).
The sentencing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's request for youthful offender treatment ( see People v Huffman, 47 AD3d 646; People v Polansky, 125 AD2d 342, 343).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit ( see People v Peters, 69 AD3d 765 [decided herewith]).