Opinion
1652
September 26, 2002.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki Scherer, J.), rendered June 8, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 17 years, unanimously affirmed.
ELEANOR J. OSTROW, for respondent.
JOEL A. BRENNER, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Sullivan, Lerner, JJ.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). Issues of credibility were properly considered by the jury and there is no reason to disturb its determinations.
The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting very limited testimony that indirectly suggested that another participant in the crime had implicated defendant, since defendant opened the door to this testimony by pursuing a line of defense that made it necessary for the People to explain how defendant came to be arrested (see People v. Tosca, 287 A.D.2d 330, affd 98 N.Y.2d 660; People v. Rolland, 284 A.D.2d 275, 276, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 733). Moreover, defendant affirmatively used this evidence in his summation. To the extent that defendant is raising a Confrontation Clause claim, such claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review such claim, we would reject it (see Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409).
The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459; People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 275-276; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292).
To the extent the existing record permits review, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714).
The record does not establish that defendant's sentence was based on any improper criteria and we perceive no basis for reduction of sentence.
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.