Opinion
September 16, 1997
Appeal from Court, Bronx County (William Wallace, III, J.).
The evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility were properly presented to the jury and we see no reason to disturb its findings ( see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94).
By failing to make specific objections, defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contentions with respect to the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes ( see, People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641). Were we to review in the interest of justice, we would find that the evidence was properly admitted. Defendant, who never requested a Ventimiglia (People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350) hearing, was not prejudiced by the absence of such a hearing since he had ample notice of the uncharged crimes evidence ( see, People v. Himko, 239 A.D.2d 661).
Defendant's challenge to the procedure followed by the court in responding to notes sent by the deliberating jury and marked as court exhibits is unpreserved and unsupported by the record ( People v. Ramos, 220 A.D.2d 250, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 906; see also, People v. Dominique, 90 N.Y.2d 880).
Based on the existing record, which defendant has not sought to expand by way of a CPL article 440 motion addressing this issue, we conclude that counsel provided meaningful representation ( People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Defendant's contentions with respect to the People's summation and the court's charge are unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.