Jerry F. Kebrdle II, Elmsford, NY, for appellant.

Susan Cacace, District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Amie M. Johnson and Raffaelina Gianfrancesco of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Robert J. Prisco, J.), rendered June 16, 2023, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, on the ground that the People failed to prove that he was the perpetrator of the robbery, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Finch, 23 NY3d 408, 410; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree (see Penal Law §§ 160.10[2][b]; 265.02[1]; 155.30[4]; People v Cintron, 95 NY2d 329, 332; People v Contes, 60 NY2d at 621).

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, 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; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 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, 646). The defendant's arguments regarding the lack of DNA or fingerprint evidence are misplaced, as the People are not required to prove their case through any particular means, and speculation on the part of the jurors regarding the absence of such evidence would have been impermissible (see People v Randolph, 180 AD3d 716, 717).

DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.