People v Gjelaj
2007 NY Slip Op 10548 [46 AD3d 911]
December 26, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 13, 2008


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
EnedGjelaj, Appellant.

[*1]John W. Mitchell, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Laurie Sapakoff, 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 July 18, 2006, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (threecounts), robbery in the first degree (three counts), robbery in the second degree (five counts),grand larceny in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of stolen property in thethird degree (two counts), unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the first degree, conspiracy inthe fourth degree, and conspiracy in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that the wiretap investigationwas carried out with the appropriate procedures in place to minimize the interception ofnonpertinent communications (see CPL 700.30 [7]; People v Floyd, 41 NY2d245, 250 [1976]; People v Nelson,21 AD3d 1121 [2005]).

Furthermore, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant'srequest for an adjournment made after the commencement of the trial, in view of the uniquecircumstances present herein, to wit, the court's direction that a second counsel was to be madeavailable in the event that initial counsel should become incapacitated (see People vArroyave, 49 NY2d 264 [1980]; People v Grigg, 299 AD2d 367 [2002]). Contrary tothe defendant's contention, he was not deprived of his right to counsel of his choice.[*2]

The sentence imposed, as may be administrativelyrecalculated to comply with Penal Law § 70.30 (1) (e) (vi) (see People v Rose, 297AD2d 646 [2002]), was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either waived or unpreserved for appellate review.Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Lifson, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.