People v. Neree
| Decision Date | 14 September 2016 |
| Citation | 37 N.Y.S.3d 562,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06006,142 A.D.3d 1026 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Hotson NEREE, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
142 A.D.3d 1026
37 N.Y.S.3d 562
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06006
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Hotson NEREE, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sept. 14, 2016.
Laurette Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.), rendered March 6, 2013, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree and robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
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 identity as the perpetrator of the crimes of grand larceny in the second degree and robbery in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law §§ 155.40[1], 160.05 ). 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, 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 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 contends that he was denied his right to proceed pro se....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Locenitt
-
People v. Meyers, 2015–02398
...v. O'Rama , 78 N.Y.2d 270, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159, 579 N.E.2d 189 with respect to jury notes (see generally80 N.Y.S.3d 128 People v. Neree, 142 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, 37 N.Y.S.3d 562 ; People v. Sorrell, 108 A.D.3d 787, 793, 969 N.Y.S.2d 198 ; People v. Albanese, 45 A.D.3d 691, 692, 850 N.Y.S.2d 112 ......
-
People v. Moore
...by the prosecutor at trial is without merit. To the extent that some of the prosecutor's remarks were improper, those remarks did not 142 A.D.3d 1026deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and any other error in this regard was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's ......
-
Yakobowicz v. Yakobowicz
...439, 494 N.Y.S.2d 354 ). For a party to be entitled to reformation on the ground of mutual mistake, the mistake must be material (see 37 N.Y.S.3d 562 Janowitz Bros. Venture v. 25–30 120th Street Queens Corp., 75 A.D.2d 203, 214, 429 N.Y.S.2d 215 ), and the party must “ demonstrate that the ......