Opinion
13533 Ind. No. 2399/17 Case No. 2019-04805
04-06-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roslyn PILMAR, Defendant–Appellant.
Talkin, Muccigrosso & Roberts, LLP, New York (Sanford N. Talkin of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Susan Axelrod of counsel), for respondent.
Talkin, Muccigrosso & Roberts, LLP, New York (Sanford N. Talkin of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Susan Axelrod of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Kennedy, Scarpulla, Shulman, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), rendered July 8, 2019, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations, or its evaluation of the extensive circumstantial evidence establishing defendant's guilt.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of preindictment delay (see People v. Singer, 44 N.Y.2d 241, 405 N.Y.S.2d 17, 376 N.E.2d 179 [1978] ; People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303 [1975] ). The record supports the court's findings regarding the applicable factors (see id. ). Although the 21–year delay was significant, it was not due to bad faith. Instead, it was the result of the prosecutor's efforts to acquire additional evidence in order to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The investigative delays were satisfactorily explained and were permissible exercises of prosecutorial discretion (see People v. Decker, 13 N.Y.3d 12, 14, 884 N.Y.S.2d 662, 912 N.E.2d 1041 [2009] ). After weighing the relevant factors, we find no basis for dismissing the indictment. Furthermore, there are no factual disputes warranting a remand for an evidentiary hearing.
The portions of the prosecutor's summation to which defendant objected did not make a propensity argument or unsubstantiated assertions of fact, or draw inferences without record support. They were responsive to defense counsel's summation or fair comment on the evidence, and any impropriety was not so egregious as to require reversal (see People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 666 N.Y.S.2d 572 [1st Dept. 1997], lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976, 672 N.Y.S.2d 855, 695 N.E.2d 724 [1998] ; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118–119, 591 N.Y.S.2d 1001 [1st Dept. 1992], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884, 597 N.Y.S.2d 945, 613 N.E.2d 977 [1993] ). Defendant's challenge to the portion of the People's summation purportedly denigrating the defense is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal.