People v. Il Park

• Decision Date: 02 March 2016
• Citation: 137 A.D.3d 818,25 N.Y.S.3d 888 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Il PARK, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

137 A.D.3d 818

25 N.Y.S.3d 888 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Il PARK, appellant.

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

March 2, 2016.

Judah Maltz, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Ushir Pandit of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered May 23, 2012, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, gang assault in the first degree, and gang assault in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence a video recording and transcript of a complainant's testimony at a conditional examination (see CPL 670.10[1] ; 670.20[1]; People v. Arroyo, 54 N.Y.2d 567, 577, 446 N.Y.S.2d 910, 431 N.E.2d 271 ). The opportunity for cross-examination afforded to defense counsel at the conditional examination was sufficient to test the reliability of the witness and to insure the fairness of the proceeding (see People v. Arroyo, 54 N.Y.2d at 574, 446 N.Y.S.2d 910, 431 N.E.2d 271 ).

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of manslaughter in the first degree is partially unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not raise some of the specific grounds that he now raises on appeal on his motion for a trial order of dismissal made after the close of the evidence (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Burgess, 75 A.D.3d 650, 904 N.Y.S.2d 673 ; People v. Rivera, 74 A.D.3d 993, 904 N.Y.S.2d 449 ; People v. Stewart, 71 A.D.3d 797, 900 N.Y.S.2d 60 ). 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 of manslaughter in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Figueroa, 143 A.D.2d 767, 533 N.Y.S.2d 472 ). Moreover, 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, 348–349, 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 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record, we are...