The People, etc., respondent, v. Anthony Cowan, appellant.
2006-07174 (Ind.No. 2394/05)
-- October 19, 2010
Mitchell Dranow, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant.Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Barbara Kornblau and Christopher A. Dailey of counsel), for respondent.
Submitted-October 1, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered July 10, 2006, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
As it is undisputed that a recording of the subject drug transaction was audible and intelligible, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the jury, with the proper limiting instruction, to utilize a transcript as an aid while listening to the recording at trial (see People v. Redmond, 41 AD3d 514; People v. Gkanios, 199 A.D.2d 411; People v. Papa, 168 A.D.2d 692; People v. Carrington, 151 A.D.2d 687; People v. Mincey, 64 A.D.2d 615).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15; People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), 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, cert denied 542 U.S. 946; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). 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).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80), and the period of post-release supervision was not illegal (see Penal Law § 70.45[d]; § 70.70[b][I] ).
SKELOS, J.P., ENG, BELEN and HALL, JJ., concur.
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court