[*1]
People v O'Hanlon (Vincent)
2011 NY Slip Op 51473(U) [32 Misc 3d 136(A)]
Decided on August 1, 2011
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on August 1, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and LaCAVA, JJ
2010-1044 P CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Vincent O'Hanlon, Appellant.


Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Putnam Valley, Putnam County (Gina C. Capone, J.), rendered December 15, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of building without a permit.


ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was convicted, after a nonjury trial, of building without a permit (Code of the Town of Putnam Valley § 165-80). Defendant's contention that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt defendant's guilt of building without a permit. 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 accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor and assess their credibility (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or are unpreserved for appellate review.

Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: August 01, 2011