| People v Caver |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08872 [56 AD3d 1204] |
| November 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rudell Caver,Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank J. Clark, District Attorney, Buffalo (Shawn P. Hennessy of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.),rendered March 27, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [former (4)]), defendantcontends that the People's alleged loss or destruction of a tape recorded conversation constituteda Rosario violation for which Supreme Court was required to impose sanctions. Wereject that contention. Defendant "fail[ed] to make an unambiguous objection when [that]violation was first noted and . . . indicat[ed] to the . . . court throughhis equivocal statements that no remedy was desired" (People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843,844 [1992]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, there is no merit to hisBatson challenge. "The prosecutor's single peremptory challenge to a black prospectivejuror did not establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference ofdiscrimination" (People v Jones, 4AD3d 796, 797 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 801 [2004] [internal quotation marksomitted]). We reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence(see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). "The jury was entitled toresolve issues of credibility in favor of the People . . . , and it cannot be said that thejury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded" (People v Walek, 28 AD3d 1246,1246 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 764 [2006]).
We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance ofcounsel (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]), as well as hischallenge to the severity of the sentence. We have considered defendant's remaining contentionsand conclude that they are without merit. Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Lunn, Fahey andGreen, JJ.