Opinion
March 18, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.).
There was legally sufficient evidence of guilt and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility and evaluation of expert testimony.
The People's brief reference, in cross-examination and summation, to defendant's failure to report to the police what he claimed at trial to be an accidental shooting could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial. The People's primary focus was on defendant's conduct, to wit, his flight and his failure to seek aid for the victim, rather than his silence ( see, People v. De George, 73 N.Y.2d 614, 620-621). Moreover, defendant's failure to contact the police was admissible as inconsistent with his defense ( see, People v. Torres, 220 A.D.2d 263, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 925; People v. Thomas, 169 A.D.2d 553, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 911; see also, People v. Rothschild, 35 N.Y.2d 355).
By failing to object, or by making general objections, defendant failed to preserve his remaining challenges to the prosecutor's elicitation of testimony and summation remarks, and we decline to review these claims in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal ( see, People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884).
On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a CPL 440.10 motion whereby matters of strategy could be explored, we find that defendant received meaningful representation ( People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708).
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.