Opinion
July 15, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant has waived any consideration of his claim that the verdicts rendered by the jury were repugnant by failing to register a protest at the appropriate stage of the proceedings ( see, People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048; People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745).
In any event, since the elements of the crime upon which defendant now stands convicted were materially different from the essential elements of the crimes upon which he was acquitted, and since these differences were reflected in the trial court's charge to the jury, the claim of repugnancy is without merit ( see, People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1; People v. Collins, 92 A.D.2d 740; People v. Campbell, 86 A.D.2d 403; People v. Alfaro, 108 A.D.2d 517). We further find that the prosecution sustained its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree ( see, People v. Francis, 50 N.Y.2d 987; People v. Brinson, 55 A.D.2d 844).
We have considered defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and find it to be without merit. Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.