Opinion
570677/09.
Decided December 22, 2010.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J., at speedy trial motion; Ellen M. Coin, J., at trial and sentencing), rendered June 19, 2009, after a jury trial, convicting him of harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J., at speedy trial motion; Ellen M. Coin, J., at trial and sentencing), rendered June 19, 2009, affirmed.
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
Defendant's legal insufficiency claim is unpreserved for appellate review. As an alternative holding, we conclude that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations.
Defendant's speedy trial motion was correctly denied. The record supports the motion court's findings as to the excludability of time for adjournments consented to by defense counsel and for the determination of defense motions ( see CPL 30.30).
Defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct during summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject these claims on the merits ( see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, lv denied 81 NY2d 884). Defendant's assertion that the court's interested witness charge was improper is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court properly charged that defendant was an interested witness, and that the charge, viewed as a whole, was balanced ( see People v Agosto, 73 NY2d 963; People v Burks, 221 AD2d 201, lv denied 87 NY2d 920; People v Huynh, 215 AD2d 168).
Defendant's contention that the court improperly accepted the verdict without first providing readbacks of testimony previously requested by the jury is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that by announcing that it had reached a verdict during the period when the court reporter was retrieving the requested testimony, the jury implicitly indicated that it no longer needed the requested readbacks ( see People v Cornado , 60 AD3d 450, lv denied 12 NY3d 913; People v Fuentes, 246 AD2d 474, lv denied 91 NY2d 941).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, and note that any potential ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim must be raised by appropriate motion ( see generally People v Bachert, 69 NY2d 593).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.