People v. Plummer

• Decision Date: 05 October 2010
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Robert PLUMMER, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

908 N.Y.S.2d 349

77 A.D.3d 688

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Robert PLUMMER, appellant.

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

Oct. 5, 2010.

Alan Katz, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg and Michael E. Softer of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered September 10, 2008, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second 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 guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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, 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 sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.