People v Gentil, 2019 NY Slip Op 08578 [177 AD3d 999]
November 27, 2019
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Estevan A. Gentil, Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, NY (Susan Epstein of counsel), for appellant.
John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Eugene J. Dirks of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ira Margulis, J.), rendered June 14, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
To the extent the defendant argues that the People did not present legally sufficient evidence that he possessed a loaded firearm, the argument is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to move for a trial order of dismissal on the basis of that specific claim ( see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review 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]). 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 received the effective assistance of counsel ( see Strickland v Washington , 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Austin, J.P., Roman, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur..