Opinion
1039 KA 19-00988
02-03-2023
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bernard SIPLIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
KIMBERLY J. CZAPRANSKI, SCOTTSVILLE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
KIMBERLY J. CZAPRANSKI, SCOTTSVILLE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND OGDEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, burglary in the first degree ( Penal Law § 140.30 [4] ). Although defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, his "general motion to dismiss at the close of the People's case did not preserve for our review any of his specific challenges on appeal to the sufficiency of the evidence" ( People v. Bubis , 204 A.D.3d 1492, 1493-1494, 167 N.Y.S.3d 283 [4th Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 1149, 174 N.Y.S.3d 43, 194 N.E.3d 750 [2022] ; see generally People v. Gray , 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995] ). Further, after viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they do not require reversal or modification of the judgment.