| People v Purdie |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03676 [50 AD3d 1065] |
| April 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v LorellPurdie, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Sholom J.Twersky of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reichbach,J.), rendered July 6, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 265.03 [2]).Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant's contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that he was deprived ofthe effective assistance of counsel, is without merit (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137[1981]; People v Gonzalez, 44AD3d 790 [2007]).[*2]
The defendant's claim, also raised in his supplemental prose brief, that the People violated their disclosure obligations under Brady v Maryland(373 US 83 [1963]), is based on factual assertions outside the record and thus, is not reviewableon direct appeal (see People v Williams,43 AD3d 729 [2007]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro sebrief, are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Rivera, J.P.,Skelos, Santucci and Belen, JJ., concur.