MARK C. DILLON
Jillian S. Harrington, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and Courtney Weinberger of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SANDRA L. SGROI, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), rendered April 7, 2011, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), 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 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053,cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). 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 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 156, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213;People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400;People v. Taberas, 60 A.D.3d 791, 793, 875 N.Y.S.2d 172).
The defendant's contention that the sentence imposed penalized him for exercising his right to trial is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Osorio, 49 A.D.3d 562, 564, 855 N.Y.S.2d 163;People v. Hargroves, 27 A.D.3d 765, 815 N.Y.S.2d 605), and, in any event, is without merit ( see People v. Ramos, 74 A.D.3d 991, 992, 904 N.Y.S.2d 81;People v. Hargroves, 27 A.D.3d at 766, 815 N.Y.S.2d 605). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).