Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (David Godosky, J.), rendered June 11, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted falsely reporting an incident in the third degree.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged with, and convicted of, attempted falsely reporting an incident in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 240.50 [3] [c]).

The evidence adduced at the nonjury trial showed that defendant was outside a night club with a large crowd of people at about 3:30 A.M. on October 13, 2007 when he called 911 and told the operator his location and that he had been shot about 100 times. A tape of the 911 call was admitted into evidence. Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence has not been preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, we would find, after reviewing the proof in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), that "there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational [trier of fact] could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). The evidence sufficiently established that defendant knew that he might benefit from falsely reporting to the 911 operator that he had been shot. [*2]

In the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]), we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. 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 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]; People v James, 31 Misc 3d 130[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50575[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). The Criminal Court implicitly discredited defendant's testimony to the effect that the police had prevented him from finishing his phone call and describing to the 911 operator what had actually happened. We find no basis to disturb the Criminal Court's guilty verdict.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 27, 2011