People v Edwards
2010 NY Slip Op 00277 [69 AD3d 755]
January 12, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 10, 2010


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
KeithEdwards, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C.Abbot, Marilyn A. Filingeri, and Naomi K. Schneidmill of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.),rendered November 28, 2006, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminalpossession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the trial court failedto properly admonish the jurors when it released them prior to their overnight recess (seeCPL 270.40, 310.10 [2]; People v Bonaparte, 78 NY2d 26, 32 [1991]; People v Williams, 46 AD3d 585[2007]; People v Lumpkin, 39AD3d 671 [2007]; People v Taylor,29 AD3d 713 [2006]). "Contrary to the defendant's contention, the failure to give aninstruction pursuant to CPL 270.40 and 310.10 is not a mode of proceedings error that need notbe preserved (see People v Bonaparte, 78 NY2d at 31 n; People v Kelly, 11 AD3d 133,144 [2004], affd 5 NY3d 116 [2005]; People v Jackson, 230 AD2d 921 [1996]).In any event, although the court's admonishments to the jury were less than complete (seeCJI2d [NY], Jury Separation During Deliberations . . . ), the defendant'scontention that the court's omission deprived him of due process is without merit since,considered in the aggregate, the court's admonishments to the jury during . . . andthroughout the trial 'adequately conveyed to the jury its function, duties and conduct' (Peoplev Fleming, 270 AD2d 498, 498 [2000])" (People v Williams, 46 AD3d at 585-586).

Viewing counsel's representation of the defendant in its entirety, the defendant was affordedthe effective assistance of counsel (see People v Ellis, 81 NY2d 854 [1993]; People vBaldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]; People v Williams, 46 AD3d at 586). Dillon, J.P.,Florio, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.