People v Bellman

People v Bellman 2013 NY Slip Op 08261 Decided on December 11, 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 11, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
PLUMMER E. LOTT
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
2011-07819
(Ind. No. 2072/10)

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

v

James Bellman, appellant.




Paula Schwartz Frome, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R.
Sternberg and Monica M.C. Leiter
of counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sullivan, J.), rendered August 3, 2011, convicting him of assault in the third degree and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

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, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, cert denied 542 US 946; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, 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 the trial court erred in denying, without a hearing, his motion to set aside the verdict due to improper juror conduct (see CPL 330.30[2]) is without merit. The Supreme Court properly determined that even if the allegations were true, the alleged misconduct did not affect a substantial right of the defendant (see People v Rodriguez, 100 NY2d 30, 35; People v Irizarry, 83 NY2d 557, 561).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's comment in summation on his pre-arrest silence is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to raise that specific objection at trial (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Beauliere, 36 AD3d 623; People v Materon, 276 AD2d 718).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., LOTT, AUSTIN and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino [*2]

Clerk of the Court