People v. Zhagnay
| Decision Date | 14 September 2016 |
| Citation | 37 N.Y.S.3d 441 (Mem),142 A.D.3d 1029,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06010 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Naula ZHAGNAY, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
142 A.D.3d 1029
37 N.Y.S.3d 441 (Mem)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06010
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Naula ZHAGNAY, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sept. 14, 2016.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Elizabeth Budnitz of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Danielle S. Fenn of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered October 15, 2012, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court dated April 16, 2015, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.
ORDERED that the judgment and the order are 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 burglary in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child 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 ; 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 defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance
of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Orama
...Ingram , 140 A.D.3d 1777, 1778, 33 N.Y.S.3d 657 ; People v. Borges , 90 A.D.3d 1067, 1069, 935 N.Y.S.2d 621 ; cf. People v. Zhagnay , 142 A.D.3d 1029, 1030, 37 N.Y.S.3d 441 ; People v. Freeman , 98 A.D.3d 682, 683–684, 949 N.Y.S.2d 771 ).In deciding whether to ask for submission of the less......
-
People v. Samaroo
...; People v. Terrero, 198 A.D.3d 930, 931, 155 N.Y.S.3d 435 ; People v. Malik, 166 A.D.3d at 653, 85 N.Y.S.3d 454 ; People v. Zhagnay, 142 A.D.3d 1029, 1030, 37 N.Y.S.3d 441 ).Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing and a new determination thereaft......
-
People v. Thompson
...in the first degree, the failure of the defendant's counsel to request such a charge was not error (see People v. Zhagnay, 142 A.D.3d 1029, 1029–1030, 37 N.Y.S.3d 441 ). Likewise, contrary to the defendant's contention, his counsel's failure to object to the discharge of an absent juror did......
-
People v. Terrero
...from the judgment was justifiable (see CPL 440.10[2][c] ; People v. Malik, 166 A.D.3d 650, 653, 85 N.Y.S.3d 454 ; People v. Zhagnay, 142 A.D.3d 1029, 1030, 37 N.Y.S.3d 441 ).Further, the County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPL 440.10 to v......