Opinion
April 13, 2000.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered February 25, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manufacture, transport, disposition and defacement of weapons and dangerous instruments and appliances (six counts), criminal sale of a firearm in the second degree (four counts), and conspiracy in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to five consecutive terms of 2 to 6 years to be served concurrently with five concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years and a concurrent term of 1 year, unanimously affirmed.
Ellen Sue Handman, for respondent.
Jan Hoth-Uzzo Pro Se, for defendant-appellant.
WALLACH, J.P., LERNER, RUBIN, BUCKLEY, JJ.
Defendant's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to particular elements of certain counts are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the elements at issue on appeal were properly established through circumstantial evidence (see, People v. Rossey, 89 N.Y.2d 970).
Defendant's claim that the court failed to direct the non-sequestered jurors to cease deliberations while in recess is subject to normal preservation rules (see, People v. Agramonte, 87 N.Y.2d 765, 769-770; People v. Webb, 78 N.Y.2d 335, 338-339; People v. Ramirez, 264 A.D.2d 666, 696 N.Y.S.2d 20), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find the charge, viewed as a whole (see,People v. Ladd, 89 N.Y.2d 893, 895), adequately conveyed the proper instructions on cessation of deliberations. In any event, there is nothing in the record to support defendant's supposition that some of the jurors might have continued deliberating on their way home (see, People v. Moore, 227 A.D.2d 227, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 990).
We conclude that the sentence was not based on any inappropriate criteria, and we perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion or other basis for a reduction in sentence.
Defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. [See, 171 Misc.2d 13.]
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.