PEOPLE v. MATHIS (2009)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered November 10, 2005, as amended November 17, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his intent to commit robbery while acting in concert with another individual is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Sepulveda, 52 A.D.3d 539, 859 N.Y.S.2d 475;  People v. Norman, 40 A.D.3d 1128, 1129, 837 N.Y.S.2d 694;  People v. Johnson, 22 A.D.3d 600, 801 N.Y.S.2d 755).   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), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant acted in concert with, and intentionally aided, his companion (see People v. Witherspoon, 300 A.D.2d 605, 753 N.Y.S.2d 88;  People v. Mejia, 297 A.D.2d 755, 756, 747 N.Y.S.2d 788;  People v. Ramos, 284 A.D.2d 136, 726 N.Y.S.2d 36;  People v. Davis, 260 A.D.2d 726, 687 N.Y.S.2d 803).   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 jury's opportunity 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;  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).