| People v Carrasquillo |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02629 [71 AD3d 1591] |
| March 26, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v EdwardCarrasquillo, Appellant. |
—[*1] William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Victoria M. White of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.),rendered July 28, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attemptedarson in the first degree and conspiracy in the second 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 ofattempted arson in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 150.20) and conspiracy inthe second degree (§ 105.15). Because defendant did not renew his motion for a trial orderof dismissal after presenting evidence, he failed to preserve for our review his contention that theaccomplice testimony was not sufficiently corroborated and that his conviction is therefore notsupported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001],rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]). In any event, that contention lacks merit. Thecorroboration required by CPL 60.22 (1) was provided by the testimony of the girlfriend of oneof defendant's accomplices concerning a conversation between defendant and the otheraccomplices, evidence that defendant's vehicle was used in the crimes and the testimony of adefense witness concerning the attempted arson. "Once the statutory minimum pursuant to CPL60.22 (1) was met, it was for the jurors to decide whether the corroborating testimony [andevidence] satisfied them that the accomplices were telling the truth" (People v Pierce,303 AD2d 966, 966 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 565 [2003]). "Defendant's furthercontention concerning the legal sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury 'is notreviewable on appeal from an ensuing judgment based upon legally sufficient trial evidence' "(People v Lee, 56 AD3d 1250, 1251 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 818 [2009];see CPL 210.30 [6]). In addition, defense counsel's failure to renew the motion for a trialorder of dismissal based on the alleged legal insufficiency of the evidence did not constituteineffective assistance of counsel because, in view of our determination that the evidence isindeed legally sufficient, defendant has not established that such a motion "would be meritoriousupon appellate review" (People v Bassett, 55 AD3d 1434, 1438 [2008], lv denied11 NY3d 922 [2009]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes ascharged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude thatthe verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Finally, we conclude that Supreme Court did not improperly change itsSandoval ruling during the presentation of defendant's case but, rather, the court merelyclarified its prior [*2]ruling (see People v Bush, 187AD2d 951 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 882 [1993]). Present—Scudder, P.J.,Sconiers, Green and Gorski, JJ.