PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Peter RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: February 18, 1999

ROSENBERGER, J.P., NARDELLI, TOM and ANDRIAS, JJ. Annica H. Jin, for Respondent. H. Rowan Gaither, IV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), rendered September 26, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 9 years to life, 8 to 16 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence.   There was ample evidence from which the jury could have inferred defendant's knowing possession of the various contraband (see, People v. Bundy, 90 N.Y.2d 918, 663 N.Y.S.2d 837, 686 N.E.2d 496).

 By failing to request further relief after the court's curative action, defendant failed to preserve his current challenge to the prosecutor's summation comment concerning threats, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.   Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court's curative actions were sufficient to prevent any prejudice to defendant (see, People v. Ferguson, 82 N.Y.2d 837, 606 N.Y.S.2d 145, 626 N.E.2d 930).  Defendant's remaining challenges to the prosecutor's summation, and to the court's charge, none of which are exempt from the requirement of preservation (see, People v. Agramonte, 87 N.Y.2d 765, 769-770, 642 N.Y.S.2d 594, 665 N.E.2d 164), are unpreserved and we decline to review any of them in the interest of justice.   Were we to review these claims, we would find that they would not warrant reversal.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.