The People, etc., respondent, v. Jack Barresi, appellant. (2011)

Argued-December 17, 2010

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Konviser, J.), rendered April 7, 2009, convicting him of assault in the second degree and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the second degree (see Penal Law § 120.05[2] ).  “[A]n intoxicated person can form the requisite criminal intent to commit a crime, and it is for the trier of fact to decide if the extent of the intoxication acted to negate the element of intent” (People v. Flores, 40 AD3d 876, 877;  see People v. LaGuerre, 29 AD3d 820, 822;  People v. Mannarino, 35 AD3d 631;  People v. Gonzalez, 6 AD3d 457).   The defendant's intent to cause physical injury (see Penal Law § 10.00[9] ) may be inferred from his conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296, 303;  People v. Spurgeon, 63 AD3d 863, 864;  People v. Gumbs, 58 AD3d 641;  People v. Mei Ying Wang, 33 AD3d 820, 821).   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 NY3d 342), 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 NY3d 383, 410, cert denied 542 U.S. 946;  People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).   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 NY3d 633).

DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court