| People v Rivera (Alfonso) |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 50190(U) [46 Misc 3d 143(A)] |
| Decided on February 17, 2015 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Mamaroneck, Westchester County (Christie L. Derrico, J.), rendered December 23, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of passing a red light.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the facts, and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.
Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of passing a red light in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1).
To the extent defendant argues that his conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence, his argument is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not move before the Justice Court to dismiss the simplified traffic information (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Kent, 71 AD3d 1162 [2010]; People v McDowell, 248 AD2d 488, 489 [1998]; People v Yankovich, 39 Misc 3d 133[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50530[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2013]).
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]). However, upon reviewing the record and weighing "the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" (People v Zephyrin, 52 AD3d 543, 543 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), we find "that an acquittal . . . would not have been unreasonable based upon the evidence presented," and that "the trial court failed to accord the evidence the weight it should have been accorded" (id.; see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348; see also People v McCoy, 34 Misc 3d 136[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52397[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Thus, we conclude that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
In light of our determination, we need not reach defendant's remaining contentions.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.
Iannacci, J.P., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.