Opinion
03-09-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Roosevelt BRADFORD, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Benjamin S. Litman of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Aurora Alvarez–Calderon of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Benjamin S. Litman of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Aurora Alvarez–Calderon of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered April 10, 2014, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, possession of burglar's tools, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the Supreme Court's instructions to the jury is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to request specific instructions or object to the court's charge as given (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Ramos, 127 A.D.3d 996, 997, 6 N.Y.S.3d 651 ; People v. Williams, 38 A.D.3d 925, 926, 833 N.Y.S.2d 160 ). In any event, the charge as a whole adequately conveyed to the jury the proper principles of law (see People v. Umali, 10 N.Y.3d 417, 428, 859 N.Y.S.2d 104, 888 N.E.2d 1046 ; People v. Barnes, 120 A.D.3d 1355, 992 N.Y.S.2d 150 ).
Further, on this record, defense counsel's performance was not ineffective for failure to object to the instructions as given. Viewing defense counsel's performance in its totality, counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Adams, 55 A.D.3d 616, 867 N.Y.S.2d 450 ).
ENG, P.J., RIVERA, HALL and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.