Opinion
2012-12-5
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Sebastian WOCJIK, appellant.
Edward Irizarry, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Ushir Pandit of counsel), for respondent.
Edward Irizarry, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Ushir Pandit of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann, J.), rendered September 21, 2010, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, gang assault in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see e.g. People v. Perez, 265 A.D.2d 347, 696 N.Y.S.2d 197;People v. Correa, 265 A.D.2d 338, 696 N.Y.S.2d 198). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The defendant's contention that a police lieutenant's testimony and the prosecutor's *485summation improperly bolstered the testimony of two witnesses is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2] ), and, in any event, is without merit.
The defendant further contends that certain instructions given to the jury by the trial court which the defendant refers to as the first and second Allen charges ( see Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528) were erroneous. The defendant's contention that the first of these two jury instructions improperly suggested that a finding of guilt as to one of the two defendants would be sufficient to support a verdict of guilt as to both defendants is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Contrary to the defendant's further contention, neither of the challenged jury instructions was coercive.