| People v Webb |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08176 [89 AD3d 874] |
| November 9, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v RamelWebb, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner, andMelissa J. Erwin of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.),rendered October 14, 2008, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession ofa weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in admitting his statement, allegedly made "afew weeks" before the robbery, that he knew "the perfect guy to rob in Brooklyn," is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, any error resulting from admission of thechallenged statement was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, andno significant probability that the error affected the verdict (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d230, 241-242 [1975]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion ingranting the People's application for a missing-witness charge (see People v Savinon, 100NY2d 192 [2003]; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424 [1986]).
The defendant's contention that the missing-witness charge was insufficient because it varied fromthe Pattern Jury Instructions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Townsend, 83 AD3d 969[2011]). In any event, the charge was sufficient, as it adequately apprised the jury of the applicable law(see People v Townsend, 83 AD3d969 [2011]; People v Calderon, 182 AD2d [*2]770[1992]). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.