Opinion
2016–02164 Ind. No. 1287/15
02-14-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Gerson LUNA, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Caitlin Halpern of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Antara D. Kanth of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Caitlin Halpern of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Antara D. Kanth of counsel), for respondent.
SHERI S. ROMAN, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (John LaTella, J.), rendered January 28, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (two counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), and unlawful possession of personal identifying information in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by allegedly improper remarks made by the Supreme Court to the prospective jurors during voir dire (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Dudley, 151 A.D.3d 878, 879, 54 N.Y.S.3d 297; People v. Sutton, 151 A.D.3d 763, 766, 57 N.Y.S.3d 180 ; People v. Mason, 132 A.D.3d 777, 779, 17 N.Y.S.3d 768 ; People v. Cunningham, 119 A.D.3d 601, 601, 988 N.Y.S.2d 696 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's alleged misconduct did not constitute a mode of proceedings error exempting him from the rules of preservation (see People v. Brown, 7 N.Y.3d 880, 881, 826 N.Y.S.2d 595, 860 N.E.2d 55 ; People v. Dudley, 151 A.D.3d at 879, 54 N.Y.S.3d 297; People v. Sutton, 151 A.D.3d at 766, 57 N.Y.S.3d 180 ; People v. Mason, 132 A.D.3d at 779, 17 N.Y.S.3d 768 ; People v. Cunningham, 119 A.D.3d at 601–602, 988 N.Y.S.2d 696 ). In any event, the court's remarks to the prospective jurors do not warrant reversal (see People v. Dudley, 151 A.D.3d at 879, 54 N.Y.S.3d 297; People v. Sutton, 151 A.D.3d at 766, 57 N.Y.S.3d 180 ; People v. Mason, 132 A.D.3d at 779, 17 N.Y.S.3d 768 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
ROMAN, J.P., MALTESE, LASALLE and BARROS, JJ., concur.