Opinion
October 4, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.).
Defendant's contention that his sentence is excessive and that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is unpreserved for this Court's review (People v. Ingram, 67 N.Y.2d 897, 899) and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Were we to review defendant's claim, we would find that defendant's HIV positive status does not render his sentence, which is the minimum permitted by statute, unconstitutional or excessive and that therefore a different result is not warranted (People v. Howard, 164 A.D.2d 895, 896-897, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 940; People v Rentas, 193 A.D.2d 565, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 725). Nor did defendant preserve his many claims regarding the trial court's denial of his Clayton motion, most notably that the court failed to hold a hearing and put its findings on the record. In any event, defendant's contentions are without merit. Defendant failed to demonstrate any compelling facts to show that his case "`"`crie[d] out for fundamental justice beyond the confines of conventional considerations'"'" warranting a hearing (People v. Canosa, 194 A.D.2d 392, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 715). Moreover, the trial court was not obligated to make a detailed enumeration of the various relevant statutory factors in making its determination (People v. Macy, 100 A.D.2d 557), particularly where the court was "reviewing" defendant's application previously denied by another Justice prior to this trial.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.