The People, etc., respondent, v. Carl Murray, appellant.

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The People, etc., respondent, v. Carl Murray, appellant.

2008–02346 (Ind.No. 1898/05)

Decided: November 22, 2011

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO ARIEL E. BELEN SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Berko of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Rona I. Kugler of counsel), for respondent.

Submitted—October 25, 2011


Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered February 26, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is without merit.   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, 348), 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 failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the photograph of the gun allegedly used in the subject incident was improperly admitted into evidence, as he did not object to its admission at trial (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19;  People v. Olavarrueth, 74 AD3d 1361, 1362;  People v. McKanney, 272 A.D.2d 629), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

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;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).



Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

Copied to clipboard