People v. Yusuf

• Decision Date: 02 July 2014
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Azeeze YUSUF, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

119 A.D.3d 619
987 N.Y.S.2d 899
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04973

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Azeeze YUSUF, appellant.

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

July 2, 2014.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Mark W. Vorkink of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered March 13, 2008, convicting him of assault in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent that the defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his intent to cause the complainant physical injury so as to support his conviction of assault in the second degree, that contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;People v. Campbell, 83 A.D.3d 729, 729–730, 919 N.Y.S.2d 906). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to cause physical injury to the complainant and his guilt of assault in the second degree ( see Penal Law §§ 10.00[9], 120.05[2]; People v. King, 85 A.D.3d 820, 925 N.Y.S.2d 561;People v. Britton, 49 A.D.3d 893, 853 N.Y.S.2d 897). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), 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, the Supreme Court properly denied his Batson challenge ( see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69). The Supreme Court's determination that the explanations proffered by the People for exercising peremptory challenges to two black venirepersons were not pretextual is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record ( see Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 477, 128 S.Ct. 1203, 170 L.Ed.2d 175;People v. Simmons, 79 N.Y.2d 1013, 1015, 584 N.Y.S.2d 423,...