People v Wocjik

People v Wocjik 2012 NY Slip Op 08349 Decided on December 5, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 5, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
2010-09639
(Ind. No. 1825/08)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Sebastian Wocjik, appellant.




Edward Irizarry, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y.
(John M. Castellano, Johnnette
Traill, and Ushir Pandit of counsel),
for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann, J.), rendered September 21, 2010, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, gang assault in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see e.g. People v Perez, 265 AD2d 347; People v Correa, 265 AD2d 338). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).

The defendant's contention that a police lieutenant's testimony and the prosecutor's summation improperly bolstered the testimony of two witnesses is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), and, in any event, is without merit.

The defendant further contends that certain instructions given to the jury by the trial court which the defendant refers to as the first and second Allen charges (see Allen v United States, 164 US 492) were erroneous. The defendant's contention that the first of these two jury instructions improperly suggested that a finding of guilt as to one of the two defendants would be sufficient to support a verdict of guilt as to both defendants is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Contrary to the defendant's further contention, neither of the challenged jury instructions was coercive.
DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court