PEOPLE v. DAYMON (1997)

 Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of three counts of robbery in the first degree, one count of robbery in the second degree, one count of robbery in the third degree, and one count of burglary in the second degree.   The conviction arises out of four separate incidents charged in the indictment.   County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a severance.   Because the offenses are “the same or similar in law”, they were properly joinable (CPL 200.20[2][c];  see, People v. Jenkins, 50 N.Y.2d 981, 431 N.Y.S.2d 471, 409 N.E.2d 944;  People v. Cabrera, 188 A.D.2d 1062, 1063, 592 N.Y.S.2d 171), and an application for severance is addressed to the sound discretion of the court (see, CPL 200.20[3];  People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1, 7, 451 N.Y.S.2d 6, 436 N.E.2d 456).   Furthermore, the People's proof with respect to each robbery was straightforward and easily segregated (see, People v. Nix, 192 A.D.2d 1116, 596 N.Y.S.2d 283, reconsideration granted 195 A.D.2d 1087, 602 N.Y.S.2d 564, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 757, 603 N.Y.S.2d 999, 624 N.E.2d 185).

Viewing the evidence, as we must, 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), we conclude that it is legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

The other alleged errors raised by defendant are either unpreserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05[2] ) or the court eliminated any prejudice to defendant arising therefrom when it struck the testimony objected to and immediately gave curative instructions (see, People v. Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179, 187, 397 N.Y.S.2d 619, 366 N.E.2d 279;  People v. Valenti, 199 A.D.2d 617, 618, 604 N.Y.S.2d 652, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 811, 611 N.Y.S.2d 147, 633 N.E.2d 502).   In any event, any error is harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).   We also conclude that defendant's sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: