PEOPLE v. CAROSELLI (2008)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of two counts of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[3], [7] ).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence inasmuch as he failed to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal after presenting evidence (see People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329, rearg. denied 97 N.Y.2d 678, 738 N.Y.S.2d 292, 764 N.E.2d 396).   In any event, that contention lacks merit (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   We reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1;  Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Although a different result would not have been unreasonable, it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

 Also contrary to the contention of defendant, he was not denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).   In addition, he was not deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor cross-examined certain witnesses who were defendant's fellow inmates concerning a letter written to them by defendant's wife.   The cross-examination was relevant with respect to the credibility of those witnesses and, to the extent that defendant characterizes the letter as inadmissible hearsay, we note that the prosecutor's cross-examination concerned the effect of the letter on its recipients rather than the truth of its contents (see generally People v. Crawford-Brown, 270 A.D.2d 825, 826, 705 N.Y.S.2d 319, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 795, 711 N.Y.S.2d 163, 733 N.E.2d 235;  People v. Boyd, 256 A.D.2d 350, 351, 683 N.Y.S.2d 271).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct (see People v. Pryor, 48 A.D.3d 1217, 851 N.Y.S.2d 801), as well as his contention that County Court's jury instructions were improper (see People v. Rasmussen, 275 A.D.2d 926, 927, 713 N.Y.S.2d 427, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 968, 722 N.Y.S.2d 485, 745 N.E.2d 406), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).   The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: