Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he abducted the victim by either secreting or holding her in a place where she was not likely to be found or by using or threatening to use deadly force ( see Penal Law § 135.00). The defendant's legal insufficiency claim is not preserved for appellate review to the extent it is premised upon whether there was legally sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he abducted the victim by using or threatening to use deadly force ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 280). 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 People v Thibodeau, 267 AD2d 952; People v Salimi, 159 AD2d 658).
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 jury'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 defendant was afforded meaningful representation ( see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563; People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Acevedo, 44 AD3d 168, 173; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d 745; People v Groonell, 256 AD2d 356, 357).
The defendant's remaining contentions raised in points II and III of his brief are not preserved for appellate review.