The People, etc., respondent, v. Anthony Williams, appellant. (2011)

Submitted—April 1, 2011

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered June 20, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the People's application for a protective order prohibiting the disclosure of an informant's identity (see CPL 240.50[1];  People v. Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163, 169–170, cert denied 419 U.S. 1012;  cf.  People v. Rios, 60 N.Y.2d 764, 765).   Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, the belated disclosure of the informant's identity, made after the People, in effect, consented to vacatur of the protective order, did not constitute a Brady violation (see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87–88;  People v. Cortijo, 70 N.Y.2d 868, 870;  cf.  People v. Eldridge, 221 A.D.2d 966).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity as one of the perpetrators beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Tam Phan, 225 A.D.2d 715).   Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342;  CPL 470.15[5] ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder'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;  People v. Tam Phan, 225 A.D.2d at 715).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83–86).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, AUSTIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court