People v Carney, 2020 NY Slip Op 01633 [181 AD3d 703]

March 11, 2020

Appellate Division, Second Department

[*1]

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

John Carney, Appellant.

Heilig, Branigan & Miller, LLP, Holbrook, NY (Michael J. Miller of counsel), for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Edward A. Bannan and Thomas C. Costello of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Fernando Camacho, J.), rendered August 3, 2017, convicting him of coercion in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly declined to allow him to introduce extrinsic evidence on a collateral matter to impeach the credibility of a witness ( see People v Alvino , 71 NY2d 233, 247 [1987]; People v Carey , 67 AD3d 925 , 926 [2009]).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins , 11 NY3d 484 , 492 [2008]). 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, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s guilt of coercion in the second degree (three counts) under former Penal Law § 135.60 (8). 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 , 348-349 [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 verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s jury charge is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Robinson , 88 NY2d 1001 [1996]; People v Taylor , 11 AD3d 715 [2004]) and, in any event, without merit.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Austin, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Iannacci, JJ., concur..