Opinion
3389.
Decided April 20, 2004.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered March 28, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Munir Pujara of counsel), for appellant.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Rafael Curbelo of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Friedman, Marlow, JJ.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record ( see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761). Defendant did not sustain his burden of establishing that when he made statements to the police his right to counsel had attached by way of an attorney's alleged entry into the case ( see People v. West, 81 N.Y.2d 370, 378-379; People v. Rosa, 65 N.Y.2d 380; People v. Henriquez, 214 A.D.2d 485, 486, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 873). The credible evidence established that a detective clarified the situation by ascertaining, directly from the attorney in question, that he did not represent defendant, notwithstanding the fact that defendant had sought information from this attorney ( see People v. Roe, 136 A.D.2d 140, affd 73 N.Y.2d 1004; People v. Beickert, 191 A.D.2d 499, 500, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 967; compare People v. Marrero, 51 N.Y.2d 56, 59). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments concerning the suppression issue.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). Both the physical evidence and defendant's actions totally contradicted his self-defense claim.
There was nothing in the court's charge that could have conveyed to the jury that the court had an opinion on the merits of defendant's justification defense.
By failing to object, by making general objections, and by failing to request further relief after an objection was sustained, defendant did not preserve his present challenges to the People's summation and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no ground for reversal ( see People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.