| People v Tuff |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09711 [90 AD3d 1645] |
| December 30, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v LeroyTuff, Jr., Appellant. |
—[*1] Leroy Tuff, Jr., defendant-appellant pro se. Scott D. McNamara, District Attorney, Utica (Steven G. Cox of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M. Donalty, J.), renderedAugust 7, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possessionof a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the thirddegree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminallyusing drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts), unlawful possession of marihuanaand intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of variousdrug-related crimes as well as the crime of intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree(Penal Law § 215.15 [1]), defendant contends, inter alia, that the People failed to providefull disclosure of the confidential informant's motivation for becoming a confidential informantand testifying at trial. That contention is not preserved for our review because defendant did notobject to any of the informant's direct testimony regarding his motivation for becoming aconfidential informant (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the record establishes thatdefense counsel both cross-examined and re-cross-examined the informant with respect to thatcontention at trial. Contrary to defendant's further contentions, County Court did not err inconsolidating the indictments for trial (see People v Rogers, 245 AD2d 1041 [1997]), nordid the court violate defendant's right to be present at sidebar conferences inasmuch as hisabsence at the sidebar conferences did not affect his ability to defend himself (see People vAntommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 250 [1992], rearg denied 81 NY2d 759 [1992];People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469, 472 [1991]). We reject defendant's contention that thesentence is illegal (see generally Penal Law § 70.25 [2]). Finally, defendant failedto preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in preventing him from calling awitness who had been granted use immunity, and he likewise failed to preserve his remainingcontentions for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to exercise our power toreview those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL470.15 [6] [a]). Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Green and Martoche, JJ.