People v. Uka

• Citation: 92 A.D.3d 907,938 N.Y.S.2d 814,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01491
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Armando UKA, appellant.
• Decision Date: 21 February 2012
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01491
92 A.D.3d 907
938 N.Y.S.2d 814

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Armando UKA, appellant.

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

Feb. 21, 2012.

Nnebe & Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (O. Valentine Nnebe of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and John F. McGoldrick of counsel), for respondent.

[92 A.D.3d 907] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Camacho, J.), rendered October 26, 2010, convicting him of assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a

[938 N.Y.S.2d 815]

weapon in the fourth 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. denied 542 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).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, reversal is not warranted[92 A.D.3d 908] due to the late disclosure of certain Rosario material ( see People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, cert. denied 368 U.S. 866, 82 S.Ct. 117, 7 L.Ed.2d 64), since the defendant failed to show that he was substantially prejudiced thereby ( see People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 940, 528 N.Y.S.2d 813, 524 N.E.2d 134; People v. Kline, 49 A.D.3d 665, 853 N.Y.S.2d 605).

The defendant's contention raised in Point Three of his brief is unpreserved for appellate review.

The defendant's remaining contention, raised for the first time in his reply brief, is not properly before this Court.

RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS...