| People v Hospedales |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02173 [71 AD3d 916] |
| March 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Stephen Hospedales, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Phyllis Mintz ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.),rendered May 22, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degreeand assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law §265.03 [3]) and assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) beyond a reasonabledoubt. Moreover, upon our independent review of the facts pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly admitted into evidence the testimonyof a detective with respect to the defendant's flight (see People v Lendore, 36 AD3d 940, 940-941 [2007]; People vGaines, 158 AD2d 540, 541 [1990]).
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in failing to provide the jury with alimiting instruction as to the weakness of flight evidence as an indication of guilt (see Peoplev Yazum, 13 NY2d 302, 304 [1963]). However, that issue is unpreserved for appellatereview since the defendant did not object to the court's instructions, request a limitinginstruction, or move for a mistrial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Yaghnam, 135AD2d 763, 764 [1987]). In addition, the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review hiscontention that the prosecutor engaged in improper bolstering (see People v Wilson, 295AD2d 545, 546 [2002]). In any event, any error was harmless, as there was overwhelmingevidence of the defendant's guilt even in the absence of the alleged errors, and there is nosignificant probability that any error contributed to his conviction (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.