People v Thompson

2007 NY Slip Op 09436 [45 AD3d 876]

November 27, 2007

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, January 16, 2008

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Robert E. Thompson, Appellant.

—[*1]Randall Richards, Bronxville, N.Y., for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Jennifer Spencer, Richard LongworthHecht, and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Zambelli, J.), rendered June 8, 2004, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree, upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court properly rejected the defendant's argument that the indictment was barredby the statute of limitations (see CPL 30.10 [2] [b]), since he failed to make a timelymotion to dismiss the indictment (see CPL 255.10 [1]; 255.20 [1]; People v Bones, 17 AD3d 689,691 [2005]), and in any event, the argument was without merit (see People v Rosich, 170AD2d 703 [1991]).

The County Court properly granted the People's unopposed application to take thethen-96-year-old complainant's testimony at a conditional examination (see CPL 660.10et seq.). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence the videotape andtranscript of the witness's testimony, including the defendant's lengthy cross-examination (seeCPL 670.10 [1]; 670.20 [1]).

The defendant's Batson challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79[1986]) was properly denied. The reasons proffered by the prosecutor for the questionedperemptory challenges were race-neutral. The defendant failed to carry his ultimate burden ofdemonstrating discrimination by showing that these reasons were pretextual (see People v Wells, 7 NY3d 51, 58[2006]; People v Smocum, [*2]99 NY2d 418, 422 [2003];People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 104, 110 [1995]).

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in time-limiting the defense counsel'sjury voir dire, since he was provided a fair opportunity to ask relevant and material questions(see CPL 270.15 [1] [c]; People v Jean, 75 NY2d 744, 745 [1989]; People vWheeler, 268 AD2d 448, 449 [2000]).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor's summation comments were, for themost part, proper (see People v Russo, 201 AD2d 512, 513 [1994], affd 85 NY2d872 [1995]). In any event, the allegedly improper comments constituted harmless error (seePeople v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]).

The defendant's argument alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit (seePeople v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 151-152 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513,519 [1983]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Florio andDillon, JJ., concur.