Opinion
2003-555 WCR.
Decided November 5, 2004.
Appeal by defendant from judgments of the Justice Court, Village of Ardsley, Westchester County (W. Schwartz, J.), rendered March 26, 2003, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26) and disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20), and imposing sentences.
Judgments of conviction unanimously affirmed.
PRESENT: McCABE, P.J., RUDOLPH and ANGIOLILLO, JJ.
Defendant's challenge to the propriety of police conduct in the events preceding his arrest is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 710.70; People v. Voliton, 83 NY2d 192, 196; People v. Bostic, 144 AD2d 477). While the court, in rendering its verdict, affirmed the propriety of the arresting officer's initial approach to defendant ( cf. CPL 470.05), defendant never argued at trial that his statements should be supressed as a result of official misconduct, and consequently, the People were not alerted to the necessity of litigating with the requisite particularity the circumstances that justified the intrusion preceding defendant's statements as the events unfolded (CPL 710.70; People v. Bora, 191 AD2d 384, 386, affd 83 NY2d 531; People v. Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1031; People v. Bannister, 220 AD2d 520, 521; People v. Daniels, 190 AD2d 858, 859).
While defendant alleges that the court exhibited bias which so inhibited the conduct of the defense as to deny him the effective assistance of counsel, he failed to interpose "any specific, relevant objection to the trial court's alleged bias" and, thus, did not preserve such claim for appellate review ( People v. Prado, 1 AD3d 533, 534; People v. Smalls, 293 AD2d 500, 501; see generally People v. Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 887 [exception to the preservation requirement permitted only "when it is clear from the record that [such] objection would have been unavailing"]). In any event, upon a review of the record, we perceive no basis for the error alleged. In this brief proceeding, the court's involvement was minimal, and to the extent that it sustained objections and interjected the occasional question of a witness, we find those determinations and questions consistent with a court's "vital role in clarifying confusing testimony and facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial" ( People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44, 57).
Finally, we reject defendant's claims based on evidentiary insufficiency. A claim of legal insufficiency is interposed by a timely objection, as by a motion to dismiss (CPL 290.10), with the requisite specificity regarding the deficiency perceived (CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v. Santos, 86 NY2d 869, 870; People v. Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859). Defendant's counsel declined the court's offer to hear post-trial motions. In any event, we are satisfied that, viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), the verdicts were supported by legally sufficient evidence ( e.g. People v. Brewer, 200 AD2d 579, 580), and in the exercise of our factual review power, that the evidence was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15; People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Where, as here, the weight to be accorded the proof depends on resolutions of credibility, and "the relative probative force of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" ( id.), such matters are primarily for the finder of fact who saw and heard the witnesses ( People v. Cummings, 291 AD2d 454, 455; People v. Hernandez, 288 AD2d 489, 490).