Opinion
May 23, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert J. Haft, J.).
Defendant's conviction arises out of his arrest for three separate knifepoint robberies of women in building lobbies within the Stuyvesant Town building complex in Manhattan over a 6-day period. The victims were young women, one of whom was sodomized by defendant.
Defendant's argument that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of one of the robbery victims, that defendant addressed a question to her at the show-up scene, without benefit of a CPL 710.30 notice, is meritless. A CPL 710.30 statement notice is required when a statement to be introduced is made to a public servant, or to a police agent, but not when a statement is made to a private party, as is the case here (see, e.g., People v Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439).
Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel likewise is without merit. Initially, trial counsel reasonably did not object to the admission into evidence of a gold bangle bracelet (matching the description of a bracelet stolen from one of the victims) recovered from defendant's pants pocket upon his apprehension, and a knife (matching the description of a knife used in the robberies) recovered in the area where defendant was apprehended, as such evidence was relevant to the issues, and tended to establish material facts (see, e.g., People v Yazum, 13 N.Y.2d 302). Similarly, trial counsel reasonably made no objection to the prosecutor's summation, which constituted fair comment on the evidence (People v Fielding, 158 N.Y. 542), and appropriate response to the defense summation (see, e.g., People v Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 362 U.S. 912). Additionally, the record indicates that trial counsel made appropriate pre-trial and trial motions, conducted extensive cross-examination of the People's witnesses in an attempt to show suggestiveness of the identification procedures and mis-identification, requested and received appropriate jury charges, and vigorously pursued a mis-identification defense. That the defense was unsuccessful is not an indication of ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
We perceive no abuse of discretion by the trial court in imposing sentence. The court reviewed the overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt in each of the crimes charged herein, as well as all available sentencing data, including the probation report, defendant's predicate felon status, and his prior criminal history (see, e.g., People v Junco, 43 A.D.2d 266, affd 35 N.Y.2d 419, cert denied 419 U.S. 951).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.