| People v Bessaha |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06610 [54 AD3d 381] |
| August 12, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AliBessaha, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley, Andre K. Cizmarik,and Anthony J. Viola of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese,J.), rendered June 26, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), and affording it the benefit of every favorable inferenceto be drawn therefrom, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt (see People vSadler, 49 AD3d 670 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 869 [2008]). There is a validline of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found that theelements of murder in the second degree were proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Smith, 6 NY3d 827[2006], cert denied 548 US 905 [2006]). Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factualreview power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was notagainst the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention regarding the admission of prior bad acts is unpreserved forappellate review and, in any event, is without merit.
The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, raised in his supplemental [*2]pro se brief, is based, in part, on matter dehors the record, whichcannot be reviewed on direct appeal (seePeople v Drago, 50 AD3d 920 [2008]; People v Potts, 49 AD3d 782 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d868 [2008]). To the extent this claim can be reviewed, the defendant received meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Adams,12 AD3d 523 [2004]; People vWright, 8 AD3d 507 [2004]; People v Washington, 5 AD3d 615 [2004]).
The defendant's remaining contention, which was raised in his supplemental pro se brief, iswithout merit. Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.