Opinion
Decided June 28, 2001.
Appeal, in the first above-entitled action, by permission of a justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of that court, entered May 10, 2000, which affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court (Donald J. Mark, J.), rendered in Monroe County upon a verdict convicting defendant of criminal trespass in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts).
Appeal, in the second above-entitled action, by permission of a justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of that court, entered November 13, 2000, which affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court (Donald J. Mark, J.), rendered in Monroe County upon a verdict convicting defendant of criminal trespass in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts).
Woods Oviatt Gilman, L. L. P., Rochester ( Michael J. Nolan of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled action. Howard R. Relin, District Attorney of Monroe County, Rochester ( Alan Cruikshank of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled action.
Barbara S. Greathead, Rochester, for appellant in the second above-entitled action.
Howard R. Relin, District Attorney of Monroe County, Rochester ( Patrick H. Fierro of counsel), for respondent in the second above-entitled action.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK, WESLEY, ROSENBLATT and GRAFFEO concur.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division in each case should be affirmed.
Defendants appeal their convictions of first degree criminal trespass, third degree criminal possession of a weapon, and two counts of seventh degree criminal possession of a controlled substance. Their arguments that the trial court should have given a "moral certainty" charge, that the indictment was multiplicitous ( see, People v. Sykes, 22 N.Y.2d 159), and Cruz's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence regarding the length of the shotgun barrel are unpreserved for our review. Defendants' remaining arguments are without merit.
In each case: Order affirmed in a memorandum.