examined Cited "see" People v. Austin (3×) The witness testified that the vehicle had a broken driver-side window, and that she heard the man state that the victims of the shooting should not have been out so late, and that he "didn't mean for that to happen to them." Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence did not merely establish defendant's presence near the crime scene, but also his complicity in the crimes of which he was convicted ( see People v Hancock , 229 AD3d 1229, 1230-1231 [4th Dept [*2]2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1020 [2024]; see generally People v Reed , 97 AD3d 1142, 1143 [4th Dept 2012], affd 22 NY3d 530 [2014], …

discussed Cited "see" People v. Neulander "It is well settled that, even in circumstantial evidence cases, the standard for appellate review of legal sufficiency issues is whether any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the [jury] on the basis of the evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People" ( People v Hines , 97 NY2d 56, 62 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Reed , 22 NY3d 530, 534 [2014], rearg denied 23 NY3d 1009 [2014]; see generally People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]).

discussed Cited "see" People v. Marvin The standard on appeal for determining whether a conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence "is the same for circumstantial and non-circumstantial cases — whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt" ( People v Grassi , 92 NY2d 695, 697 [1999], rearg denied 94 NY2d 900 [2000]; see People v Reed , 22 NY3d 530, 534 [2014], rearg denied 23 NY3d 1009 [2014]; People v Clark , 142 AD3d 1339 , 1340 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 [*2]NY3d 1143 [2…