PEOPLE v. BURWELL

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-20). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Smith, 16 AD3d 602).

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's contention that the Supreme Court did not provide a meaningful response to a jury question is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Slacks, 90 NY2d 850). In any event, the Supreme Court responded meaningfully to the note from the jury ( see CPL 310.30; People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, cert denied 459 US 847; People v Hayes, 48 AD3d 831).