People v Knight, 2015 NY Slip Op 09120 [134 AD3d 856]
December 9, 2015
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Jerry Knight, Appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Howard B. Goodman, and Amanda Muros-Bishoff of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered October 15, 2012, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator and his guilt of the crimes of which he was convicted 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 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 verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for a new assigned counsel ( see People v Porto , 16 NY3d 93 , 99-100 [2010]; People v Allison , 69 AD3d 740 , 740 [2010]). The court conducted a sufficient inquiry regarding the basis of the defendant’s request and no further inquiry was required, as the defendant’s assertions did not suggest the serious possibility of a genuine conflict of interest or other impediment to the defendant’s representation by assigned counsel ( see People v Porto , 16 NY3d at 99-100; People v Sides , 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]; People v Sawyer , 57 NY2d 12, 18-19 [1982]; People v Medina , 44 NY2d 199, 207 [1978]; People v Allison , 69 AD3d at 740; cf. People v Beard , 100 AD3d 1508 , 1510 [2012]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and Barros, JJ., concur..