People v Negron
2008 NY Slip Op 08182 [55 AD3d 464]
October 28, 2008
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 10, 2008


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

[*1]Glenn R. Abolafia, New York, for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Craig A. Ascher of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), rendered September 5,2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencinghim, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

By failing to object, or by failing to make a specific objection, defendant failed to preservehis challenges to certain portions of the victim's testimony, including defendant's constitutionalclaims, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, wealso reject them on the merits. None of the victim's testimony concerning his observations of thebehavior of the apartment's other occupants constituted hearsay or was otherwise inadmissible.To the extent defendant is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, that claim is likewiseunpreserved and without merit. The victim's testimony, coupled with circumstantial evidence(see e.g. People v Torres, 33 AD3d 318 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 929[2006]), clearly established that defendant entered the apartment without anyone's permission andwith the contemporaneous intent to commit a crime.

The court properly declined to submit criminal trespass as a lesser included offense, sincethere was no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant entered the apartment unlawfully,but without the intent to commit a crime. Although defendant now asserts there was a reasonableview that he entered as a guest of a nontestifying occupant, but then remained unlawfully, he didnot preserve that argument (see People v Liner, 262 AD2d 250 [1999], lv denied93 NY2d 1021 [1999]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternativeholding, we also reject it on the merits, as being based entirely on speculation.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias,Nardelli, Buckley and Freedman, JJ.


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.