PEOPLE v. CLARK (2025)

MEMORANDUM

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of, inter alia, robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[4]) after a jury trial at which one of the victims identified him as one of the two persons who robbed her at gunpoint while she was seated in the passenger seat of a vehicle in mid-afternoon.  Defendant contends that the evidence of identity was legally insufficient because the victim's identification was unreliable as a matter of law.  To the extent that defendant preserved his contention for our review, we reject it.  Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 [1983]), “ ‘there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” (People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007];  see People v. Calabria, 3 N.Y.3d 80, 81–82, 783 N.Y.S.2d 321, 816 N.E.2d 1257 [2004]).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, under the circumstances, the court's denial of his request to instruct the jury on photo array procedures does not constitute reversible error (see People v. Inniss, 83 N.Y.2d 653, 658–659, 612 N.Y.S.2d 360, 634 N.E.2d 961 [1994]).  Defendant failed to preserve his remaining challenges to the jury instruction for our review (see People v. Harper, 7 N.Y.3d 882, 882–883, 826 N.Y.S.2d 594, 860 N.E.2d 57 [2006]).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum.

Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.