PEOPLE v. RAND (2009)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered December 8, 2004, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant claims that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he abducted the victim by either secreting or holding her in a place where she was not likely to be found or by using or threatening to use deadly force (see Penal Law § 135.00[2] ).   The defendant's legal insufficiency claim is not preserved for appellate review to the extent it is premised upon whether there was legally sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he abducted the victim by using or threatening to use deadly force (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, --- N.E.2d ----;  People v. Payne, 3 N.Y.3d 266, 280, 786 N.Y.S.2d 116, 819 N.E.2d 634).   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 (see People v. Thibodeau, 267 A.D.2d 952, 700 N.Y.S.2d 621;  People v. Salimi, 159 A.D.2d 658, 552 N.Y.S.2d 964).

 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 defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 721 N.Y.S.2d 577, 744 N.E.2d 112;  People v. Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021, 622 N.Y.S.2d 675, 646 N.E.2d 1102;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400;  People v. Acevedo, 44 A.D.3d 168, 173, 841 N.Y.S.2d 55;  People v. Dolan, 2 A.D.3d 745, 768 N.Y.S.2d 654;  People v. Groonell, 256 A.D.2d 356, 357, 682 N.Y.S.2d 226).

The defendant's remaining contentions raised in Points II and III of his brief are not preserved for appellate review.