PEOPLE v. TABERAS (2009)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Knopf, J.), rendered May 18, 2006, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of reckless endangerment in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;  People v. Finger, 95 N.Y.2d 894, 716 N.Y.S.2d 34, 739 N.E.2d 290;  People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 859, 523 N.Y.S.2d 492, 518 N.E.2d 4).   In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the crime of reckless endangerment in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt.   The defendant led the police on a chase for about one mile over “slushy” and “icy” roads in the rain and snow, reaching speeds of 40 miles per hour, through a busy residential neighborhood with narrow roads.   The defendant forced cars to pull over to avoid colliding with him, disregarded several traffic control devices, and stopped only when his vehicle skidded (see People v. MacLean, 48 A.D.3d 1215, 850 N.Y.S.2d 819;  People v. Wolz, 300 A.D.2d 606, 752 N.Y.S.2d 382;  People v. Kenney, 288 A.D.2d 323, 733 N.Y.S.2d 124;  People v. Walker, 258 A.D.2d 541, 685 N.Y.S.2d 452;  People v. Finger, 266 A.D.2d 561, 699 N.Y.S.2d 119).   Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

The defendant's claim that he was denied a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation also is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Friel, 53 A.D.3d 667, 862 N.Y.S.2d 105;  People v. Carrieri, 49 A.D.3d 660, 854 N.Y.S.2d 427;  People v. German, 45 A.D.3d 861, 862, 846 N.Y.S.2d 348).   In any event, the challenged comments were either fair comment on the evidence or a fair response to the defense summation (see People v. Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819, 595 N.Y.S.2d 380, 611 N.E.2d 281;  People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564).

The defendant's contention that trial counsel's failure to preserve certain claims for appellate review constituted ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v. Acevedo, 44 A.D.3d 168, 841 N.Y.S.2d 55;   People v. Coles, 43 A.D.3d 1424, 842 N.Y.S.2d 654;  see also People v. Friel, 53 A.D.3d 667, 862 N.Y.S.2d 105;  People v. Rose, 47 A.D.3d 848, 849 N.Y.S.2d 158).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).