People v Amatuccio, 2023 NY Slip Op 05616 [221 AD3d 726]
November 8, 2023
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Joseph Amatuccio, Appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (David Fitzmaurice and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler [Lauren Schorr Potter and Meghan Larywon], of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, William H. Branigan, and Ronald Eniclerico of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Richard L. Buchter, J.), rendered December 3, 2019, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and unlawful possession of pistol ammunition, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Following a nonjury trial, the defendant was convicted of three counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and unlawful possession of pistol ammunition in connection with a shooting incident in the defendant’s apartment wherein the victim died. The defendant was acquitted of the charge of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) on the ground that the prosecution failed to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt ( see id. § 35.20 [3]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b) ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Mathieu , 83 AD3d 735 , 735-736 [2011]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b) ( see id. § 265.15 [4]; People v Mathieu , 83 AD3d at 736).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342 , 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). 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 NY3d 633 [2006]). [*2] The defendant’s contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit ( see People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143 , 152 [2005]).
The sentences imposed on the convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree were not excessive ( see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Duffy, J.P., Christopher, Wan and Landicino, JJ., concur..