Peoplev.Neverson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second DepartmentFeb 9, 1998
247 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
247 A.D.2d 492667 N.Y.S.2d 945

February 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is unavailing, as he has not demonstrated that he was provided less than meaningful representation ( see, People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 187). His complaints about his counsel's representation are nothing more than disagreements after the trial "with strategies, tactics or the scope of possible cross-examination" ( People v. Flores, supra, at 187; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). The defendant's trial counsel did, in fact, assert his right to be present during jury selection pursuant to People v. Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247), but that right does not extend to sidebar conferences concerning the inability of prospective jurors to serve because of physical impairments, family obligations, or work commitments ( see, People v. Camacho, 90 N.Y.2d 558; People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 363, 375; People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 472-473).

The defendant's claim that the prosecutor's failure to disclose a witness's prior statement on an audio tape of a call to the 911 emergency number constituted a Rosario violation is deemed abandoned, as the defendant indicated at trial that he did not want the tape, and neither objected nor requested a sanction when the People could not produce it ( see, People v. Kane, 85 N.Y.2d 1024, 1027; People v. Rogelio, 79 N.Y.2d 843).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).

The defendant's sentence is not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit.

Miller, J.P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.