
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Perez, Appellant.
    [930 NYS2d 895]
   The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the convictions of robbery in the second degree is unpreserved 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 prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Gonzalez, 3 AD3d 579 [2004]). 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 nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilty was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.  