PEOPLE v. HARRINGTON (2009)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75[1][a] ).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence by failing 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).   Contrary to the implicit contention of defendant, he did not preserve his challenge for our review by his post-trial motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 (see People v. Mills, 28 A.D.3d 1156, 1157, 813 N.Y.S.2d 592, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 903, 826 N.Y.S.2d 612, 860 N.E.2d 74).   In any event, defendant's challenge lacks merit (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime 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 Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).  “Great deference is accorded to the jury's resolution of credibility issues ․, and it cannot be said herein that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” (People v. McKinnon, 15 A.D.3d 842, 842, 788 N.Y.S.2d 766, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 888, 798 N.Y.S.2d 734, 831 N.E.2d 979).

 Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct (see People v. Cox, 21 A.D.3d 1361, 1363-1364, 802 N.Y.S.2d 813, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 753, 810 N.Y.S.2d 421, 843 N.E.2d 1161), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).   We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.   Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of the case as a whole and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).   Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

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

MEMORANDUM: