PEOPLE v. PETERS (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Laura R. Johnson, J.), rendered February 24, 2023, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.  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, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053;  People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 494, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).  Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

The defendant's contention that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387) rendered the entire firearm licensing system of New York State unconstitutional is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to raise a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court (see People v Joyce, 219 AD3d 627, 628, 194 N.Y.S.3d 303;  People v Manners, 217 AD3d 683, 685, 191 N.Y.S.3d 90).  We decline to review the unpreserved contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the Supreme Court violated constitutional principles of double jeopardy by finding him guilty of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03(1)(b) and (3) is also unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Lavon S., 136 AD3d 1044, 1046, 26 N.Y.S.3d 310), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.