| People v Perry |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03575 [62 AD3d 1260] |
| May 1, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome Perry,Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Shawn P. Hennessy of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Shirley Troutman, J.), renderedSeptember 4, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in thethird degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict ofburglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and criminal possession of stolenproperty in the fifth degree (§ 165.40). Defendant failed to preserve for our review hiscontention that County Court erred in admitting at trial the testimony of a police officer thatbolstered the identifications of defendant by the victim and a witness (see People v Cala, 50 AD3d 1581[2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 957 [2008]; People v Mattis, 46 AD3d 929, 931 [2007]). In any event, thatcontention is without merit inasmuch as the testimony provided a narrative of the events that ledto defendant's arrest (see People vMendoza, 35 AD3d 507 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 987 [2007]; People vSmalls, 293 AD2d 500, 501 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 681 [2002]). We reject thefurther contention of defendant that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counselbased on the failure of defense counsel to object to the officer's testimony and to renew hismotion for a trial order of dismissal. As noted, the officer's testimony was properly admitted inevidence, and we further note that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction(see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The "failure to make [anobjection or] a motion . . . that has little or no chance of success" does notconstitute ineffective assistance of counsel (People v Dashnaw, 37 AD3d 860, 863 [2007], lv denied 8NY3d 945 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Viewing defense counsel's representationas a whole, we conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel (seegenerally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith,Fahey, Carni and Pine, JJ.