Opinion
570041/04
Decided on June 20, 2005.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, New York County, rendered November 19, 2003 after a jury trial (Ellen M. Coin, J.) convicting him of stalking in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 120.45), aggravated harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.30), and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26), and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction rendered November 19, 2003 (Ellen M. Coin, J.) affirmed.
Before: PRESENT: HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J., HON. WILLIAM J. DAVIS, HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of due process based upon the trial court's refusal to charge the jury on the issue of motive, raised for the first time on appeal, is unpreserved for our review ( see People v. Vasquez, 11 AD3d 643, lv denied 4 NY3d 749). Similarly unpreserved are defendant's nonconstitutional challenges to the court's charge, since defendant expressed satisfaction with the court's ruling on his request to charge on the motive issue and took no exception to the charge as given ( see People v. Hernandez, 294 AD2d 230). We decline to review defendant's claims in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that the omission of a charge on motive ( see 1 CJ1 [NY] 12.15, at 703), if error ( compare People v. Cotto, 28 AD2d 1116, 1117, with People v. Ryan, 240 AD2d 775, 776, lv denied 90 NY2d 910), was not unduly prejudicial in the context of this trial, particularly considering the wide latitude afforded defense counsel to address the issue on summation.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.