| People v Taberas |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01826 [60 AD3d 791] |
| March 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Elkyn Taberas, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C.Abbot, and Suzanne H. Sullivan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Knopf, J.),rendered May 18, 2006, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the thirddegree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconviction of reckless endangerment in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vHawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894 [2000];People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859 [1987]). In any event, viewing the evidence in thelight most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), wefind that it was legally sufficient to establish the crime of reckless endangerment in the firstdegree beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant led the police on a chase for about one mileover "slushy" and "icy" roads in the rain and snow, reaching speeds of 40 miles per hour,through a busy residential neighborhood with narrow roads. The defendant forced cars to pullover to avoid colliding with him, disregarded several traffic control devices, and stopped onlywhen his vehicle skidded (see People vMacLean, 48 AD3d 1215 [2008]; People v Wolz, 300 AD2d 606 [2002];People v Kenney, 288 AD2d 323 [2001]; People v Walker, 258 AD2d 541[1999]; People v Finger, 266 AD2d 561 [1999]). Upon our independent review pursuantto CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633 [2006]).[*2]
The defendant's claim that he was denied a fair trial bycertain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation also is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Friel, 53 AD3d 667 [2008]; People v Carrieri, 49 AD3d 660[2008]; People v German, 45 AD3d861, 862 [2007]). In any event, the challenged comments were either fair comment on theevidence or a fair response to the defense summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819[1993]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]).
The defendant's contention that trial counsel's failure to preserve certain claims for appellatereview constituted ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v Acevedo, 44 AD3d168 [2007]; People v Coles, 43AD3d 1424 [2007]; see also Peoplev Friel, 53 AD3d 667 [2008]; People v Rose, 47 AD3d 848 [2008]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83[1982]). Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.