PEOPLE v. SCHLAU (2009)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 165.45[2] ) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the count of criminal possession of stolen property because the contention advanced in his motion for a trial order of dismissal concerning that count “ ‘was not specifically directed at the ground advanced on appeal’ “ (People v. Townsley, 50 A.D.3d 1610, 1611, 856 N.Y.S.2d 424, lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 742, 864 N.Y.S.2d 400, 894 N.E.2d 664). In any event, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient with respect to that count (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Further, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of that count as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally id.; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Finally, contrary to defendant's further contention, Supreme Court's “Sandoval compromise ․ reflects a proper exercise of the court's discretion” (People v. Thomas, 305 A.D.2d 1099, 759 N.Y.S.2d 720, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 600, 766 N.Y.S.2d 175, 798 N.E.2d 359).

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

MEMORANDUM: