| People v Adamek |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00022 [69 AD3d 979] |
| January 7, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vicki A.Adamek, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Peter N. DeLucia of counsel), forrespondent.
Cardona, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Cawley, J.),rendered September 8, 2008, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of conspiracy inthe second degree and criminal solicitation in the second degree.
Defendant was charged with conspiracy in the second degree and criminal solicitation in thesecond degree after she met with an undercover investigator and allegedly attempted to arrangethe murder of her husband's girlfriend. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of bothcharges and sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 1 to 3 years.
On appeal, defendant raises numerous challenges relating to the admission of evidence aswell as County Court's charge to the jury. Since no objections were made during the trial withrespect to those issues, they are not properly preserved for our review (see People vGray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]).
Similarly, the general objection at trial that the People did not present a prima facie case wasinsufficient to preserve for our review her challenge that the convictions are not supported bylegally sufficient evidence (see id. at 19; People v Hawkins, 45 AD3d 989, 991 [2007], lv [*2]denied 9 NY3d 1034 [2008]), and our review of the recorddiscloses no reason to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to reverse on that basis (see People v Mann, 63 AD3d1372, 1373 [2009]). To the extent that defendant's argument can be construed as challengingthe weight of the evidence, we find it to be without merit. The video and audiotaped evidence ofdefendant's meeting with the undercover investigator established that she told the investigatorshe wanted her husband's girlfriend "dead." After discussing what she could afford, defendantpaid the investigator $50 and supplied him with the girlfriend's name, phone number, address,place of work and work schedule. Viewing the evidence in a neutral light and deferring to thejury's credibility determinations, the verdict was amply supported by the weight of the evidence(see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; People v Booker, 53 AD3d 697, 703-704 [2008], lv denied11 NY3d 853 [2008]).
Finally, even if it were preserved for our review (see People v Jackson, 52 AD3d 1052, 1054 [2008], lvdenied 11 NY3d 789 [2008]), the record discloses no merit to defendant's claim that CountyCourt erred in the procedures used in responding to the jury's inquiries during deliberation.
Lahtinen, Kavanagh, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, and matter remitted to the County Court of Broome County for further proceedingspursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).