legal sufficiency claim in New York

2026We disagree. "[I]n conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluates whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crimes charged" (<i>People v James</i>, 245 AD3d 1102 , 1104 [3d Dept 2026] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; <i>see People v Bleakley</i>, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2020"In reviewing a legal sufficiency claim, this Court must, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, evaluate whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusions reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime[] charged" ( People v Colon , 177 AD3d 1086 , 1087 [2019] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2020In reviewing a legal sufficiency claim, this Court must "view[ ] the facts in a light most favorable to the People" to determine "whether, as a matter of law, a jury could logically conclude that the People sustained its burden of proof" ( People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349 ).

2018In reviewing a legal sufficiency claim, the Court must "view[ ] the facts in a light most favorable to the People" to determine "whether, as a matter of law, a jury could logically conclude that the People sustained its burden of proof" ( People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]).

2015Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must in the context of a legal sufficiency analysis (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant forcibly stole marihuana from the victim and that, during the course and commission of that robbery, he shot the victim to death.

2015Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must in the context of a legal sufficiency analysis (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant forcibly stole marihuana from the victim and that, during the course and commission of that robbery, he shot the victim to death.

2024Initially, defendant argues that the jury verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and is also against the weight of [*2]the evidence. [FN2] "In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluates whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" ( People v Warner , 194 A

2024Initially, defendant argues that the jury verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and is also against the weight of [*2]the evidence. [FN2] "In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluates whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" ( People v Warner , 194 A

2024Initially, defendant argues that the jury verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and is also against the weight of [*2]the evidence. [FN2] "In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluates whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" ( People v Warner , 194 A

2024Initially, defendant argues that the jury verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and is also against the weight of [*2]the evidence. [FN2] "In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluates whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" ( People v Warner , 194 A

2025"In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluates whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" ( People v Flower , 173 AD3d 1449 , 1450 [3d Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 34 NY3d 931 [2019]; accord People v Dickinson , 182 AD3d 783 , 78

2024"In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluates whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" ( People v Flower , 173 AD3d 1449 , 1450 [3d Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 34 NY3d 931 [2019]; accord People v Dickinson , 182 AD3d 783, 783

2020"In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluates whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" ( People v Flower , 173 AD3d 1449 , 1450 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 34 NY3d 931 [2019]; see People v Robinson , 156 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2017], l

2018A legal sufficiency challenge requires us to "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluate whether 'there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged'" ( People v Robinson , [*2] 156 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2017], quoting People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; see People v Kancharla , 23 NY3d 294, 302 [2014]).

2018When conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, "we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluate whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis [*2]of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" ( People v Graham , 138 AD3d 1242, 1242 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 28 NY3d 930 [2016]).

2017“In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, [this Court] view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluate [s] ‘whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged’ ” (People v Graham, 138 AD3d 1242, 1242 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 930 [2016], quoting People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2019When reviewing a legal sufficiency claim, the Court must "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluate whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime[s] charged" ( People v Haggray , 164 AD3d 1522 , 1524 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 32 NY3d 1111 [2018]; see People v Bueno , 18 NY3d 160, 169 [2011]).

2019When reviewing a legal sufficiency claim, the Court must "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluate whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime[s] charged" ( People v Haggray , 164 AD3d 1522 , 1524 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 32 NY3d 1111 [2018]; see People v Bueno , 18 NY3d 160, 169 [2011]).

2014Indeed, as a matter of logic, if a defendant fails to preserve a legal sufficiency claim when he or she initially moves for a trial order of dismissal on specific grounds but does not later renew that motion at the end of the defense case (see Hines, 97 NY2d at 61-62 ), the defendant just as surely fails to preserve such a claim when the defendant fails to challenge the legal sufficiency of the trial evidence for reasons similar to those for which he previously assailed the accusatory instrument.

2013A legal sufficiency challenge that has not been properly preserved at trial is not an issue that would require reversal as a matter of law and, therefore, is not a proper basis for CPL 330.30 (1) relief, which was properly denied (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]; People v Sudler, 75 AD3d 901, 904 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 956 [2010]; People v Thomas, 38 AD3d 1134, 1136 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 852 [2007]).

2019Defendant argues that the jury verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and is against the weight of the evidence. [FN1] "In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluates whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirement for every element of the crime charged" ( People v Brousseau , 149 AD3d 1275, 1276 [20

2019Defendant argues that the jury verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and is against the weight of the evidence. [FN1] "In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluates whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirement for every element of the crime charged" ( People v Brousseau , 149 AD3d 1275, 1276 [20

2013It is well established that a court reviewing a legal sufficiency claim must affirm a defendant’s judgment of conviction if “ ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983], quoting Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307, 319 [1979]).

2012In a legal sufficiency inquiry, this Court’s role is limited to determining 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” (Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307, 319 [1979]; see also People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]).

2024Given the Appellate Division's reference to our weight of the evidence precedent (including Danielson [9 NY3d 342], Mateo [2 NY3d at 410], Bleakley [69 NY2d at 495], and Romero [7 NY3d 633]), as well as to its statutory obligation under CPL 470.15 (5) to determine, based on the facts, whether a verdict of conviction was against the weight of the evidence, we reject this contention.

2024Given the Appellate Division's reference to our weight of the evidence precedent (including Danielson [ 9 NY3d 342 ], Mateo [ 2 NY3d at 410 ], Bleakley [ 69 NY2d at 495 ], and Romero [ 7 NY3d 633 ]), as well as to its statutory obligation under CPL 470.15 (5) to determine, based on the facts, whether a verdict of conviction was against the weight of the evidence, we reject this contention.

2020This "deferential standard" is satisfied so long as "there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt" ( People v Acosta , 80 NY2d 665, 672 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2020In reviewing a legal sufficiency claim, the court must view the facts in a light most favorable to the People to determine "'whether there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt'" ( People v Acosta , 80 NY2d 665, 672 , quoting People v Steinberg , 79 NY2d 673, 682 ).

2018The legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved, as defendant's general trial motion for dismissal included no arguments directed at specific deficiencies in the proof ( see People v Gray , 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]; People v Perillo , 144 AD3d 1399 , 1400 [2016], lvs denied 29 NY3d 948 , 951 [2017]).

2007The legal sufficiency claim was properly preserved by motion (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]) specifically directed to those alleged deficiencies which are now being challenged on appeal (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Cona, 49 NY2d 26 , 33 n 2 [1979]; People v Cole, 35 AD3d 911, 912 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 944 [2007]).

2015We reject defendant’s further contention that County Court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to the police (see People v Gutierrez, 96 AD3d 1455, 1455 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 997 [2012]).

2015We reject defendant’s further contention that County Court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to the police (see People v Gutierrez, 96 AD3d 1455, 1455 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 997 [2012]).

2026"When undertaking a weight of the evidence review, we must first determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, a different finding would not have been unreasonable and then, if not, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" ( People v Ashe , 208 AD3d 1500, 1501 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 39 NY3d 961 [2022]; see People v Alger , 206 AD3d 1049 , 1050-1051 [3d Dept

2025By contrast, when conducting a weight of the evidence review, we "must first determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, a different finding would not have been unreasonable and then, if not, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" ( People v Ashe , 208 AD3d 1500, 1501 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 39 NY3d 961 [2022]; see People v Alger , 206 AD3d 1049 , 1050-1

2025Landscaping Nursery & Florist, Inc. v Verizon NY, Inc. , 71 Misc 3d 1214[A] , at *2 [Sup Ct, NY County, 2021], affd 208 AD3d 1125 [1st Dept 2022]; Lore v NY Racing Assn Inc. , 12 Misc 3d 1159[A] , at *2 [Sup Ct, Nassau County, 2006], citing Pisani v Westchester County Health Care Corp. , 424 F Supp 2d 710, 714 [SD NY 2006]).

2025Landscaping Nursery & Florist, Inc. v Verizon NY, Inc. , 71 Misc 3d 1214[A] , at *2 [Sup Ct, NY County, 2021], affd 208 AD3d 1125 [1st Dept 2022]; Lore v NY Racing Assn Inc. , 12 Misc 3d 1159[A] , at *2 [Sup Ct, Nassau County, 2006], citing Pisani v Westchester County Health Care Corp. , 424 F Supp 2d 710, 714 [SD NY 2006]).

2025People v Castillo , 47 NY2d 270, 277 [1979] ["(T)he foundation for the findings must be facts and inferences that are so reasonable that they cannot be confused with mere conjecture or suspicion"]; People v. Scharf , 217 NY 204 [1916] ["It is not enough to create a conjecture or suspicion, nor should the jury be permitted to guess at the truth . . .

2025A legal sufficiency analysis requires that we view the evidence "in the light most favorable to the People." "[S]urmise or conjecture" cannot suffice ( see e.g. {**43 NY3d at 1036}People v Castillo , 47 NY2d 270, 277 [1979] ["(T)he foundation for the findings must be facts and inferences that are so reasonable that they cannot be confused with mere conjecture or suspicion"]; People v Scharf , 217 NY 204, 211 [1916] ["It is not enough to create a conjecture or suspicion, nor should the jury be permitted to guess at the truth . . .

2025"When reviewing a legal sufficiency claim, we must determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, could lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that each and every element of the charged crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt" ( People v Shamsuddin , 167 AD3d 1334 , 1334 [3d Dept 2018] [internal quotation [*7]marks and citations omitted], lv denied 33 NY3d 953 [2019]; see People v Novak , 148 AD3d 1352, 1354 [3d Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1084 [2017]).

2018In contrast, in determining whether a verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence, we first consider whether a different verdict would have been unreasonable and, if it would not, we "weigh the relative probative force of conflicting [*2]testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" ( People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Lang , 164 AD3d 963 , 966 [2018]; People v Novak , 148 AD3d 1352, 1354 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1084 [2017]).