PEOPLE v. RAMIREZ (2009)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered March 22, 2006, convicting him of aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree, upon a nonjury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 As a threshold matter, the defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, --- N.E.2d ----;  People v. Gordon, 47 A.D.3d 833, 833-834, 849 N.Y.S.2d 168;  People v. Colon, 43 A.D.3d 951, 842 N.Y.S.2d 39).   In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932;  People v. Hayes, 47 A.D.3d 835, 849 N.Y.S.2d 166), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Burgos, 18 A.D.3d 667, 794 N.Y.S.2d 684;  People v. Smith, 303 A.D.2d 426, 755 N.Y.S.2d 871;  People v. Best, 294 A.D.2d 512, 742 N.Y.S.2d 852).   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 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;  People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). 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 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).