People v. Bellman

112 A.D.3d 732, 976 N.Y.S.2d 401
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 11, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 112 A.D.3d 732 (People v. Bellman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Bellman, 112 A.D.3d 732, 976 N.Y.S.2d 401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

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 [2007]), 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 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). 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 [2006]).

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 [733]*733substantial right of the defendant (see People v Rodriguez, 100 NY2d 30, 35 [2003]; People v Irizarry, 83 NY2d 557, 561 [1994]).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s comment in summation on his prearrest 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 [2007]; People v Materon, 276 AD2d 718 [2000]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Lott, Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Jean
118 A.D.3d 1024 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Boley
116 A.D.3d 965 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 A.D.3d 732, 976 N.Y.S.2d 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bellman-nyappdiv-2013.