People v. Cowan

Citation77 A.D.3d 850,909 N.Y.S.2d 367
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Anthony COWAN, appellant.
Decision Date19 October 2010
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
909 N.Y.S.2d 367
77 A.D.3d 850

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
Anthony COWAN, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Oct. 19, 2010.

Mitchell Dranow, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Barbara Kornblau and Christopher A. Dailey of counsel), for respondent.

77 A.D.3d 850

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered July 10, 2006, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

As it is undisputed that a recording of the subject drug transaction was audible and intelligible, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the jury, with the proper limiting instruction, to utilize a transcript as an aid while listening to the recording at trial ( see People v. Redmond, 41 A.D.3d 514, 837 N.Y.S.2d 710; People v. Gkanios, 199 A.D.2d 411, 605 N.Y.S.2d 322; People v. Papa, 168 A.D.2d 692, 563 N.Y.S.2d 515;

People v. Carrington, 151 A.D.2d 687, 542 N.Y.S.2d 744; People v. Mincey, 64 A.D.2d 615, 406 N.Y.S.2d 526).
77 A.D.3d 851

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 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. denied 542 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 sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675), and the period of post-release supervision was not illegal ( see Penal Law § 70.45[2][d]; § 70.70[3][b][I] ).

SKELOS, J.P., ENG, BELEN and HALL, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Zawaski v. Salzano
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 19, 2010
    ...January 14, 2010, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and denied his cross motion for909 N.Y.S.2d 367summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance L......
  • People v. Colon
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 19, 2010
    ...of the indictment. On May 13, 2005, he was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of77 A.D.3d 8504 1/2 to 9 years. Subsequently, on October 27, 2009, the defendant moved to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46, which extended the availability of re......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT