Martin Geoffrey Goldberg, Franklin Square, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Kevin C. King and Michael J. Balch of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., BETSY BARROS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Teresa K. Corrigan, J.), rendered November 22, 2016, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts), assault in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third 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 contention that certain challenged testimony constituted improper bolstering is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not object to the testimony on this ground (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Moore, 89 A.D.3d 769, 769–770, 931 N.Y.S.2d 886 ; People v. Bryan, 50 A.D.3d 1049, 1050, 856 N.Y.S.2d 227 ). In any event, the challenged testimony was properly admitted and did not constitute improper bolstering (see People v. Spicola, 16 N.Y.3d 441, 452–453, 922 N.Y.S.2d 846, 947 N.E.2d 620 ; People v. Buie, 86 N.Y.2d 501, 510–511, 634 N.Y.S.2d 415, 658 N.E.2d 192 ; People v. Moore, 89 A.D.3d at 769–770, 931 N.Y.S.2d 886 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence testimony regarding certain statements made by the defendant, as those statements constituted adoptive admissions of the defendant (see People v. Campney, 94 N.Y.2d 307, 311–312, 704 N.Y.S.2d 916, 726 N.E.2d 468 ).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 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 factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; 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 ).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., BARROS, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.