People v Rivera, 2015 NY Slip Op 00914 [125 AD3d 694]
February 4, 2015
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Ciceron Rivera, Appellant.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Andrea M. DiGregorio and Pamela Kelly-Pincus of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kase, J.), rendered September 27, 2012, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree, endangering the welfare of a child, unlawful fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree, and reckless driving, 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, contrary to the defendant’s contention, it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt of criminal contempt in the first degree. 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 as to that count was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633 [2006], affd 7 NY3d 911 [2006]).
The defendant’s contention that the trial court displayed bias in its treatment of the defense is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Prado , 4 NY3d 725 , 726 [2004]; People v Rodriguez , 111 AD3d 856 , 859 [2013]; People v Bedell , 84 AD3d 1733 , 1734 [2011]). In any event, the record does not support the defendant’s claim of bias ( see People v Rodriguez , 111 AD3d at 859; People v Persaud , 98 AD3d 527 , 528 [2012]; People v Argentieri , 66 AD3d 558 , 559 [2009]).
Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant was afforded meaningful representation, and, thus, was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; 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 contentions are without merit. Eng, P.J., Dillon, Chambers and Duffy, JJ., concur..