People v Williams, 2021 NY Slip Op 04156 [195 AD3d 1050]
June 30, 2021
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Kareem Williams, Appellant.
Joseph A. Hanshe, Sayville, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Anthony Senft, Jr., J.), rendered May 7, 2019, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a firearm, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that his convictions are not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins , 11 NY3d 484 , 492 [2008]; People v Pearsall , 171 AD3d 1096 , 1096 [2019]). 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 ( see People v Moses , 177 AD3d 619 , 620 [2019]; People v Williams , 170 AD3d 1046 , 1047 [2019]). 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 NY3d 342 [2007]), 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 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his application for a missing witness charge. The defendant’s application for a missing witness charge was untimely, as it was not made until the charge conference, after the close of evidence ( see People v Joseph , 161 AD3d 1105 , 1105 [2018]; People v Mancusi , 161 AD3d 775 , 776 [2018]; People v Sealy , 35 AD3d 510 , 510 [2006]). In any event, the witness’s testimony would have been cumulative ( see People v Mancusi , 161 AD3d at 776), and the witness was unavailable to the People ( see People v Joseph , 161 AD3d at 1105). Hinds-Radix, J.P., Connolly, Iannacci and Christopher, JJ., concur..