PEOPLE v. NEWELL (2025)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cassandra M. Mullen, J.), rendered October 24, 2019, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of arson in the second degree, arson in the fifth degree, petit larceny, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a term of six years followed by five years of postrelease supervision on the arson in the second degree count and concurrent terms of six months on each of the other counts, unanimously affirmed.

The jury's request for the “video of defendant shoplifting” in a Duane Reade store was an unambiguous request calling for a ministerial response (see People v. Hernandez, 198 A.D.3d 465, 466, 155 N.Y.S.3d 159 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1146, 159 N.Y.S.3d 334, 180 N.E.3d 498 [2021];  People v. Snipes, 178 A.D.3d 405, 406, 115 N.Y.S.3d 238 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1163, 120 N.Y.S.3d 249, 142 N.E.3d 1151 [2020];  see also People v. Damiano, 87 N.Y.2d 477, 487, 640 N.Y.S.2d 451, 663 N.E.2d 607 [1996]).  Accordingly, the court was not obligated to solicit the views of counsel regarding an appropriate response and properly sent the video exhibit to the jury room pursuant to the parties' previous authorization to “send the exhibits in without you being here.”

Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is unreviewable.  Defendant made the same arguments in a CPL 440.10 motion that was denied, and this Court denied leave to appeal (see People v. Jolivert, 223 A.D.3d 572, 573, 202 N.Y.S.3d 109 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 984, 210 N.Y.S.3d 741, 234 N.E.3d 357 [2024]).

We perceive no basis for reducing defendant's sentence.