| People v Spillman |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09632 [57 AD3d 580] |
| December 2, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AlexanderSpillman, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Valerie A. Livingston, Richard LongworthHecht, and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cohen, J.),rendered April 3, 2007, as amended April 6, 2007, convicting him of assault in the second degree,resisting arrest, and littering in public, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubtthe defendant's guilt of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]), and resistingarrest (Penal Law § 205.30; see People v Riccobono, 282 AD2d 552, 552-553[2001]; People v Coulanges, 264 AD2d 853 [1999]). Moreover, upon our independentreview pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weightof the evidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court erredin charging the jury on Penal Law § 35.27 (the "no-sock law") immediately after charging thejury on resisting arrest (see People v Basora, 75 NY2d 992, 994 [1990]; People vHenry, 306 AD2d 539 [2003]; People v Slack, 131 AD2d 610 [1987]). In any event, wenote that the defendant requested that the court charge the jury with respect to Penal Law §35.27. The court later clarified that the instruction related to the justification [*2]defense. Moreover, the charge did not blur the distinction betweenauthorized and unauthorized arrests or leave the jury with the impression that the defendant would beguilty of resisting an unauthorized arrest if he used force (see People v Commesso, 184 AD2d719, 721 [1992]; cf. People v Rosa, 277 AD2d 506, 507 [2000]; People vCarneglia, 63 AD2d 734, 735 [1978]; People v Harewood, 63 AD2d 876, 877 [1978]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dillon, JJ.,concur.