Filed Date: 3/4/2008
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence under indictment No. 680-04 is unpreserved for appellate review, since defense counsel made only a general motion to dismiss that indictment and did not elaborate with specific facts or grounds the basis for dismissal (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). 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 of burglary in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant’s contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation were improper is unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to object to those comments at trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Glover, 11 AD3d 478 [2004]; People v Woody, 9 AD3d 439 [2004]; People v George, 2 AD3d 457 [2003]). In any event, the challenged remarks either were responsive to the defendant’s summation (see People v Thomas, 186 AD2d 602 [1992]), were ameliorated by the
Furthermore, the defendant’s failure either to request specific instructions with regard to a jury charge or to timely object to the charge as given renders his claim that he was denied the right to a fair trial due to the court’s instructions unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Williams, 38 AD3d 925 [2007]). In any event, the jury instructions regarding burglary in the third degree, when read as a whole, fairly instructed the jury on the correct principles of law to be applied to the case (see People v Bracey, 249 AD2d 319 [1998]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dickerson, JJ., concur.