Opinion
November 13, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
This judgment of conviction emanates from an altercation between the defendant and Donovan Carty, which resulted in the latter's death. On appeal, the defendant does not dispute the fact that he is responsible for Carty's death, but argues that his actions were justified since he was acting in self-defense, and that the People failed to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.
It is axiomatic that justification is not a defense to the use of deadly physical force unless the actor reasonably believes that another person is about to use deadly physical force against him and he is unable to retreat safely (see, Penal Law § 35.15 [a]; see also, People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96). The evidence at trial established that following an initial confrontation between Carty and the defendant, the defendant retreated. The defendant thereafter retrieved a shotgun, which he had hidden, and returned to the scene of the initial altercation. Several witnesses testified that at this point, the defendant approached Carty, pointed the gun at his chest and fired a shot. Although there was some indication that Carty had threatened the defendant earlier in the evening, it is undisputed that none of the witnesses, or the defendant, ever observed Carty carrying a weapon. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that there was ample evidence to enable the jury to find that the defendant initiated the incident which caused Carty's death, and was not acting in self-defense at that time (see, People v. Thompson, 125 A.D.2d 511; People v. Reyes, 116 A.D.2d 602). Moreover, the defendant had every opportunity to retreat safely, without resorting to the use of deadly force (see, Penal Law § 35.15 [a]; People v. Richardson, 155 A.D.2d 488). Accordingly, the finding that the defendant's actions were not justified was supported by legally sufficient evidence (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), and was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.