Opinion
02-25-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Lazaro GILOCOMPO, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Tammy Linn of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Laura T. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Tammy Linn of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Laura T. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered June 20, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to move for a trial order of dismissal specifically directed at the errors he now claims (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his identity as one of the perpetrators (see People v. Jenkins, 93 A.D.3d 861, 861, 940 N.Y.S.2d 874 ). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to 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 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 was violated by the admission into evidence of statements made by a nontestifying codefendant to a detective following the codefendant's arrest, as well as by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation that were related to those statements (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Jenkins, 93 A.D.3d at 861, 940 N.Y.S.2d 874 ; People v. Reid, 71 A.D.3d 699, 699–700, 894 N.Y.S.2d 905 ). In any event, those contentions are without merit. With respect to the challenged statements, each one, taken individually, did not directly implicate the defendant (see People v. Melendez, 285 A.D.2d 819, 821–822, 727 N.Y.S.2d 773 ). Furthermore, for the same reason, the defendant's contentions about the remarks made by the prosecutor in summation, which, in effect, reiterated the statements at issue, are also without merit. Moreover, the remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence and testimony (see People v. Herb, 110 A.D.3d 829, 972 N.Y.S.2d 668 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit