PEOPLE v. MANLEY (2009)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann, J.), rendered May 17, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;  People v. Finger, 95 N.Y.2d 894, 895, 716 N.Y.S.2d 34, 739 N.E.2d 290).   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 the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   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, 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).   The fact that some of the People's witnesses had unsavory backgrounds and testified pursuant to cooperation agreements did not render their testimony incredible (see People v. Calabria, 3 N.Y.3d 80, 783 N.Y.S.2d 321, 816 N.E.2d 1257;  People v. Adams, 302 A.D.2d 601, 755 N.Y.S.2d 641).

The defendant's contention that he was entitled to an accomplice corroboration charge pursuant to CPL 60.22 is also unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Edwards, 28 A.D.3d 491, 492, 811 N.Y.S.2d 586;  People v. Rudd, 1 A.D.3d 539, 540, 767 N.Y.S.2d 261) and, in any event, is without merit (see e.g. People v. Edwards, 28 A.D.3d at 492, 811 N.Y.S.2d 586;  People v. Young, 235 A.D.2d 441, 442, 653 N.Y.S.2d 124;  People v. Morillo, 156 A.D.2d 479, 480, 549 N.Y.S.2d 37).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel.   Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v. Taylor, 1 N.Y.3d 174, 176, 770 N.Y.S.2d 711, 802 N.E.2d 1109;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).