The People, etc., respondent, v. Eugene G. LaPierre, appellant.

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The People, etc., respondent, v. Eugene G. LaPierre, appellant.

2008–02548 (Ind.No. 203/07)

Decided: July 19, 2011

MARK C. DILLON, J.P. JOHN M. LEVENTHAL L. PRISCILLA HALL PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ. Joseph A. Hanshe, P.C., Sayville, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Sarah S. Rabinowitz of counsel;  Andrew Saraga on the brief), for respondent.

Submitted—May 31, 2011


Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), rendered February 15, 2008, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the police had probable cause to arrest him (see People v. Stays, 265 A.D.2d 585;  People v. Palacio, 121 A.D.2d 282, 283;  see also People v. Mitchell, 166 A.D.2d 676).

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 robbery in the third degree 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 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).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the prosecutor's summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Malave, 7 AD3d 542;  People v. Bruen, 136 A.D.2d 648, 649).   In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit (see People v. Paul, 82 AD3d 1267, 1267–1268, lv denied 16 NY3d 898;  People v. Adamo, 309 A.D.2d 808, 810;  People v. Phillips, 285 A.D.2d 477, 478;  People v. Hill, 176 A.D.2d 755, 756).



Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

Copied to clipboard