Opinion
570676/01.
Decided March 17, 2004.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, New York County, rendered March 15, 2001 after a nonjury trial (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.) convicting him of leaving the scene of an incident without reporting (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600[a][1]; [a][2]), and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction rendered March 15, 2001 (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.) affirmed.
PRESENT: HON. LUCINDO SUAREZ, P.J. HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
The verdict convicting defendant of leaving the scene of an incident without reporting (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600[a]; [2][a]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The chain of circumstantial evidence sufficiently established the element of identity.
We find unavailing defendant's present claim of ineffective assistance grounded solely on the premise that defense counsel did not move to dismiss the information on speedy trial grounds. There is no basis in this record indicating that defendant was entitled to such relief ( see, People v. Hernandez, 248 AD2d 149, lv denied 91 NY2d 1008) and, since the issue was never explored in the context of a CPL 440.10 motion, it cannot now be determined whether defense counsel decided against making a speedy trial motion for strategic purposes ( see, People v. Black, 247 AD2d 238, lv denied 91 NY2d 970; see also, People v. Obert, ___ AD2d ___, 766 NYS2d 264, 265-266).
Police testimony concerning an eyewitness' written note identifying the license plate number of the hit-and-run taxicab was properly received over defendant's hearsay objection, because it was not admitted to prove the truth of its content but rather to provide background information explaining the events leading to defendant's arrest ( see, People v. Jenkins, 302 AD2d 247, 248-249, lv denied 100 NY2d 583; People v. Roraback, 242 AD2d 400, 403, lv denied 91 NY2d 879). In any event, on a nonjury trial, the court is presumed to have "considered only competent evidence in reaching its verdict" ( People v. Howard, 209 AD2d 1014, affd 87 NY2d 940).
Defendant's challenges to the People's summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the remarks now challenged constituted fair comment on the evidence in response to defense arguments and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial ( see, People v. Miley, 306 AD2d 164, lv denied 100 NY2d 623).
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.