| People v Adams |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07237 [43 AD3d 1423] |
| September 28, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rikki D.Adams, Appellant. |
—[*1] Rikki D. Adams, defendant-appellant pro se. Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered June9, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of arson in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby isunanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of arson in thethird degree (Penal Law § 150.10 [1]), defendant contends that the expert testimony of thearson investigator at trial improperly invaded the jury's province. Although we agree withdefendant that County Court erred in allowing the arson investigator to testify that the fire wasintentionally set, we conclude that the error is harmless (see People v Champion, 247AD2d 901 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 971 [1998]; see generally People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review hiscontention that the grand jury proceeding was defective based on similar opinion testimony(see generally People v Beyor, 272 AD2d 929 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 832[2000]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretionin the interest of justice (see id.).
Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the evidence is legally sufficient tosupport the conviction, i.e., "there is [a] valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences whichcould lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence attrial" (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The People presented evidenceestablishing that defendant had stated that he "was going to get" the arson victim, he wanted thebuilding to burn down once it caught fire, he admitted setting the fire, and his hands smelled ofgasoline. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the court erred inrefusing to suppress a lighter found in his pocket (see People v Coleman, 56 NY2d 269,274 [1982]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter ofdiscretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).[*2]The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We haveexamined defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.Present—Gorski, J.P., Smith, Centra, Fahey and Green, JJ.