WEBSTER, ADAM E., PEOPLE v

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: February 7, 2014
• Docket: KA 12-02203
• Status: Published

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

112 KA 12-02203 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ADAM WEBSTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KATHLEEN P. REARDON, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JASON L. COOK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PENN YAN (PATRICK T. CHAMBERLAIN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Yates County Court (W. Patrick Falvey, J.), rendered October 9, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of failure to register as a sex offender.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of failure to register as a sex offender (Correction Law §§ 168-f [4]; 168-t). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court improperly permitted the prosecutor to question a defense witness concerning the witness’s adjudication as a youthful offender (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see generally People v Murray, 17 AD3d 1042, 1043, lv denied 5 NY3d 792), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, we conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is legally sufficient to support the conviction. Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The jury was entitled to credit the testimony of the People’s witnesses and to reject the conflicting testimony of the defense witnesses (see People v Moore, 227 AD2d 227, 227, lv denied 88 NY2d 990). Finally, we have considered the alleged deficiencies in defense counsel’s performance and conclude that defendant received meaningful -2- 112 KA 12-02203

representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

Entered: February 7, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court