Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
As a threshold matter, the defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484; People v Gordon, 47 AD3d 833, 833-834; People v Colon, 43 AD3d 951). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620; People v Hayes, 47 AD3d 835), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Burgos, 18 AD3d 667; People v Smith, 303 AD2d 426; People v Best, 294 AD2d 512). 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 opportunity of the trier of fact 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).