| People v Jones |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02159 [82 AD3d 1582] |
| March 25, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cyress Jones,Appellant. |
—[*1] Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (John Patrick Feroleto of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.),rendered May 27, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary inthe first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two countsof burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2], [4]) and one count each of robberyin the first degree (§ 160.15 [4]) and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [2] [a]),defendant contends that Supreme Court failed to comply with CPL 310.30 in responding to threenotes from the jury during its deliberation. Defendant failed to preserve for our review hiscontention with respect to the second and third jury notes. We conclude that the court provideddefense counsel with notice of the content thereof and with the substance of the court's intendedresponse (cf. People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928, 931 [1995]), and defendant failed to object atthat time (see People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; People v Cooley, 48 AD3d 1091[2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 861 [2008]; see also People v DeRosario, 81 NY2d801, 803 [1993]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the court was not required to read thecontents of those notes verbatim into the record (see generally People v Kadarko, 14 NY3d 426, 428-429 [2010]).We conclude that defendant waived his contention with respect to the first jury note byconsenting to allow the court to respond to requests for exhibits without consulting the attorneys(see People v Ming Yuen, 222 AD2d 613 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 851[1996]). In any event, that contention is without merit (see id.).
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against theweight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.