People v Williams
2026 NY Slip Op 02424
April 22, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Troy Williams, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on April 22, 2026
2019-11755, (Ind. No. 6892/17)
Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.
Valerie Brathwaite Nelson
Barry E. Warhit
James P. McCormack, JJ.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (White & Case LLP [Courtney Andrews, Abigail Warner Mahoney, pro hac vice, Olivia Hussey, and Jacob Showers], of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Michael Bierce of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vincent M. Del Giudice, J.), rendered September 27, 2019, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed from a determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision, to a determinate term of imprisonment of 8 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree in connection with a shooting that occurred in Brooklyn on August 27, 2017.
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 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).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. The record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under both the federal and state constitutional standards (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 688; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712).
The defendant's contention that the People withheld certain Brady material (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83) is not properly raised on direct appeal and should be raised in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment, because the facts supporting the defendant's contention are dehors the record (see People v Abad, 208 AD3d 892, 894; People v Petion, 186 [*2]AD3d 1410, 1411).
The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court