People v. Santana

• Decision Date: 25 January 2017
• Citation: 146 A.D.3d 990,2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00494,44 N.Y.S.3d 915 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Leonardo SANTANA, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

146 A.D.3d 990

44 N.Y.S.3d 915 (Mem)

2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00494

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Leonardo SANTANA, appellant.

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

Jan. 25, 2017.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Benjamin S. Litman of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, William Branigan, and Josette Simmons of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered August 8, 2013, convicting him of assault in the first 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 disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Bolling, 7 N.Y.3d 874, 826 N.Y.S.2d 174, 859 N.E.2d 913 ; People v. Stoney, 72 A.D.3d 708, 897 N.Y.S.2d 642 ; People v. Barreto, 70 A.D.3d 574, 895 N.Y.S.2d 92 ; People v. Spells, 66 A.D.3d 924, 886 N.Y.S.2d 625 ; People v. O'Henry, 13 A.D.3d 470, 785 N.Y.S.2d 715 ; People v. Suphal, 7 A.D.3d 547, 776 N.Y.S.2d 101 ). The evidence was also legally sufficient to support the jury's finding that the complainant sustained a serious physical injury (see Penal Law § 10.00 [10] ; People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, 555 N.Y.S.2d 647, 554 N.E.2d 1235 ; People v. Payne, 115 A.D.3d 439, 981 N.Y.S.2d 521 ; People v. Rosa, 112 A.D.3d 551, 977 N.Y.S.2d 250 ; People v. Meneses, 195 A.D.2d 527, 601 N.Y.S.2d 827 ; People v. Blunt, 176 A.D.2d 741, 574 N.Y.S.2d 812 ).

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 testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ). 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 ).

Under the circumstances of this case, including the serious nature of the crime, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender treatment, and we decline to disturb that determination (see CPL 720.20[1] ; People v. Bae, 137 A.D.3d 804, 25 N.Y.S.3d 887 ; People v. Almonte, 122 A.D.3d 870, 995 N.Y.S.2d 511 ; People v. Williams, 110 A.D.3d 746, 972 N.Y.S.2d 94 ; People v. Huffman, 47 A.D.3d 646, 850 N.Y.S.2d 473 ; People v. Thompson, 16 A.D.3d 603, 792 N.Y.S.2d 142 ; People v. Ortega, 114 A.D.2d 912, 495 N.Y.S.2d 82 ).

DILLON, J.P., MILLER, HINDS–RADIX and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.