People v. Samuel

• Decision Date: 07 March 2018
• Docket Number: 2016–05083,Ind.No. 15–00263
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Roshan SAMUEL, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

159 A.D.3d 724

69 N.Y.S.3d 491 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Roshan SAMUEL, appellant.

2016–05083

Ind.No. 15–00263

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

Submitted—February 13, 2018

March 7, 2018

Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Nina Y. Lee of counsel), for appellant.

Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Christine DiSalvo and William C. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Robert A. Neary, J.), rendered April 20, 2016, convicting him of disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree (two counts), 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 of disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree (two counts) 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, 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 guilty of disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree (two counts) 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 ).

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court properly limited the scope of the defendant's cross-examination of the victim (see CPL 60.43 ). Moreover, the court's evidentiary rulings were proper in all respects.

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.