Anthony M. Giordano, Ossining, NY, for appellant.

Miriam E. Rocah, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Shea Scanlon Lomma and Raffaelina Gianfrancesco of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (David S. Zuckerman, J.), rendered March 13, 2019, convicting him of assault 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 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the second 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 [2007]), 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 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). 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 [2006]). The defendant's contention that the evidence failed to establish the serious physical injury element of assault on a peace officer (Penal Law § 120.08) is rendered academic by his acquittal of that charge (see People v Shearin, 177 AD3d 504, 504 [2019]; People v Hairston, 167 AD3d 935, 936 [2018]).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not deprive him of a fair trial by charging the jury on Penal Law § 35.10 (2) and Correction Law § 137 (5), which were already in evidence. Whether a jury charge is appropriate in an individual case is generally " 'a matter for the Trial Judge's discretion' " (People v Daniels, 225 AD2d 632, 632 [1996], quoting People v Knight, 87 NY2d 873, 874 [1995]). Given that the defendant requested a justification defense charge, which deems physical force justified where it is in response to the "use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by [another] person" (Penal Law § 35.15 [1]), Penal Law § 35.10 (2) and Correction Law § 137 (5) provided the jury with important insight as to whether the correction officer's actions would be considered "unlawful" (see Penal Law § 35.10 [2]; Correction Law § 137 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Connolly, J.P., Maltese, Dowling and Love, JJ., concur.