Opinion
May 11, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's argument that he was entitled to have the jury instructed on the defense of temporary innocent possession of a weapon (1 CJI [NY] 9.65) is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, although there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded that there was a legal excuse for the defendant having the weapon in his possession, since the defendant admits that he shot the deceased twice, the weapon was used in a dangerous manner, and thus an innocent possession charge was not warranted (see, People v. Williams, 50 N.Y.2d 1043). The defendant's claim that the jury's verdict was repugnant similarly is not preserved for our review since no objection was made prior to the discharge of the jury (see, People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985) and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v. Glass, 55 N.Y.2d 834; People v. Bell, 125 A.D.2d 319; see also, People v Pons, 68 N.Y.2d 264).
We have considered the defendant's other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.