People v Feurtado

People v Feurtado 2013 NY Slip Op 08653 Decided on December 26, 2013 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 26, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
MARK C. DILLON
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
2011-06500
(Ind. No. 10396/09)

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

v

Kourtney Feurtado, appellant.




Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Kendra L. Hutchinson of
counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard
Joblove, Keith Dolan, and Matthew
J. Benjamin of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered June 13, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the loss of certain Rosario material (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866), and thus, the Supreme Court properly declined to give an adverse inference charge with respect to the content of that material (see CPL 240.75; People v Brown, 71 AD3d 1043; People v DiFiore, 46 AD3d 835; Matter of Benjamin J., 10 AD3d 608).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial when the Supreme Court participated in the readbacks of certain testimony to the jury by assuming the role of a witness or inquiring counsel (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Alcide, 21 NY3d 687). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, any error the court may have committed by participating in the readbacks was harmless and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237; People v Facey, 104 AD3d 788, 789).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should have afforded him youthful offender treatment is without merit (see CPL 720.10[2][a][ii]; [3][i]; cf. People v Tyquan S., 54 AD3d 1062).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
MASTRO, J.P., DILLON, ANGIOLILLO and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur. [*2]

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court