Opinion
2014–10906 Ind. No. 3071/10
04-24-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Miguel MOLINAR, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, William H. Branigan, and Rachel N. Houle of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, William H. Branigan, and Rachel N. Houle of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred by not including an expanded interested witness charge in its instructions to the jury is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.