Opinion
03-01-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Omar ANDERSON, appellant.
John Brian Macreery, Katonah, NY, for appellant. Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Hae Jin Liu and Laurie G. Sapakoff of counsel), for respondent.
John Brian Macreery, Katonah, NY, for appellant.
Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Hae Jin Liu and Laurie G. Sapakoff of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Warhit, J.), rendered July 15, 2014, convicting him of assault in the second degree and attempted assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2 ]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 ). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see CPL 470.15[2] [b] ). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on this count was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not err in admitting testimony from a police officer about the contents of radio transmissions, as they were admitted to give the jury a complete picture of why police officers were at the scene and to avoid speculation (see People v. Nanton, 18 A.D.3d 671, 795 N.Y.S.2d 648 ; People v. Baez, 7 A.D.3d 633, 633, 777 N.Y.S.2d 162 ; People v. Burrus, 182 A.D.2d 634, 582 N.Y.S.2d 235 ). The trial court's clear limiting instructions to the jury effectively eliminated any risk of prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Nanton, 18 A.D.3d 671, 795 N.Y.S.2d 648 ; People v. Baez, 7 A.D.3d at 633, 777 N.Y.S.2d 162 ; People v. Burrus, 182 A.D.2d 634, 582 N.Y.S.2d 235 ). The defendant's remaining contentions concerning the radio transmission are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).