PEOPLE v. REEVES (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ronald D. Hollie, J.), rendered August 16, 2018, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.  The appeal brings up for review the denial (Evelyn L. Braun, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

For his act of slashing the complainant across her face with a sharp or edged instrument, causing an 11–centimeter laceration reaching from inside the complainant's ear to under her eye that resulted in, inter alia, a permanent facial scar, the defendant was convicted of two counts of assault in the first degree.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence regarding the complainant's identification of the defendant.  The People established that the complainant had sufficient familiarity with the defendant so that her photographic identification of him was merely confirmatory (see People v. Ellis, 198 A.D.3d 674, 675, 155 N.Y.S.3d 189;  People v. Jacobs, 65 A.D.3d 594, 595, 884 N.Y.S.2d 656;  cf.  People v. Coleman, 73 A.D.3d 1200, 1202–1203, 903 N.Y.S.2d 431).  The People properly established the complainant's prior knowledge through the testimony of a detective (see People v. Ellis, 198 A.D.3d at 675, 155 N.Y.S.3d 189;  People v. Jacobs, 65 A.D.3d at 595, 884 N.Y.S.2d 656).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the complainant sustained a serious physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(10) in that she suffered serious and permanent disfigurement (see People v. McKinnon, 15 N.Y.3d 311, 315, 910 N.Y.S.2d 767, 937 N.E.2d 524;  People v. Gomez, 225 A.D.3d 710, 712, 206 N.Y.S.3d 713;  People v. Harwood, 183 A.D.3d 1281, 1282, 121 N.Y.S.3d 500;  People v. Gadson, 190 A.D.2d 860, 861, 593 N.Y.S.2d 875).  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.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the People to call a witness out of turn (see People v. Singleton, 41 N.Y.2d 402, 405, 393 N.Y.S.2d 353, 361 N.E.2d 1003;  People v. Toussaint, 74 A.D.3d 846, 847, 902 N.Y.S.2d 165;  People v. Duplessis, 16 A.D.3d 846, 847, 791 N.Y.S.2d 214).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit.  After review of the pretrial and trial records in their entirety, and without giving undue significance to retrospective analysis, we are satisfied that the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Guiebre, 224 A.D.3d 773, 775, 205 N.Y.S.3d 191;  People v. Lewis, 215 A.D.3d 982, 983, 187 N.Y.S.3d 764;  People v. Bell, 298 A.D.2d 398, 398, 751 N.Y.S.2d 402).  “Trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make an objection or motion that would have little chance of success” (People v. Bell, 188 A.D.3d 904, 906, 135 N.Y.S.3d 413;  see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, VOUTSINAS and HOM, JJ., concur.