| People v Thompson |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03926 [62 AD3d 817] |
| May 12, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Raheem Thompson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y.Brodt, and Jennifer S. Michael of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.),rendered December 6, 2006, convicting him of assault in the first degree, assault in the seconddegree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction of assault inthe second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of theindictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 376 [1974]) struck an appropriate balance between theprobative value of the defendant's prior convictions on the issue of his credibility and thepossible prejudice to him (see People vMathis, 55 AD3d 628 [2008]; People v Harvey, 50 AD3d 1058 [2008]).
The defendant's claims of alleged improprieties in the prosecutor's cross-examination of himand in summation are unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant either failed to raise anobjection, made only general objections or, when an objection was sustained, failed to requestfurther instructions or move for a mistrial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray,86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Morel, 297 AD2d 757 [2002]; People vRobinson, 281 AD2d 564, 565 [2001]). In any event, the defendant's contentions either arewithout merit or relate to harmless error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242[1975]; People v Gill, 54 AD3d965, 965-966 [2008]; People v Robinson, 281 AD2d at [*2]565).
The defendant's conviction of assault in the second degree and the sentence imposed thereonmust be vacated and that count of the indictment dismissed, as it is an inclusory concurrent countof assault in the first degree (see CPL 300.30 [4]; 300.40 [3] [b]; Penal Law §120.05 [1]; § 120.10 [1]; People vLaConte, 45 AD3d 699, 699-700 [2007]; People v Soto, 31 AD3d 793, 794 [2006]; People v DeFreitas, 19 AD3d 506,507 [2005]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.