People v Pilgrim

People v Pilgrim 2012 NY Slip Op 08041 Decided on November 21, 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 November 21, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
2011-01660
(Ind. No. 9562/09)

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

v

Christopher Pilgrim, appellant.




Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jessica M. McNamara of
counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard
Joblove and Diane R. Eisner of
counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered February 8, 2011, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a determinate term of eight years of imprisonment plus a period of five years of postrelease supervision.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed from a determinate term of eight years of imprisonment plus a period of five years of postrelease supervision to a determinate term of five years of imprisonment plus a period of five years of postrelease supervision.

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's instructions to the prospective jurors during jury selection were improper is unpreserved for appellate review, since neither defense counsel's general exception nor his arguments alerted the trial court to the specific objections which the defendant now raises on appeal (see People v Hollingsworth, 299 AD2d 368; People v Staton, 124 AD2d 687). In any event, the instructions during voir dire were not improper (see People v Harper, 32 AD3d 16, affd 7 NY3d 882; People v Hoyle, 32 AD3d 864; People v Andrews, 30 AD3d 434).

The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
FLORIO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court