| People v Richardson |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00711 [92 AD3d 408] |
| February 2, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lamiek Richardson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Naomi C. Reed of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Roger S. Hayes, J.), rendered May 9, 2008,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in thethird degree, two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, andthree counts of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him toan aggregate term of two years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant did not preserve his claim that the jury's mixed verdict was repugnant, includinghis assertion that CPL 310.50 (2) obligated the court to resubmit the case to the jury (seePeople v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985 [1985]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The jury reached different verdicts as toevents that occurred on different dates. The gist of defendant's argument is that, under theevidence presented, it was illogical for the jury to reach different verdicts. However, a verdictmay only be set aside as repugnant where the repugnancy is legal rather than factual (People v Muhammad, 17 NY3d532 [2011]).
To the extent defendant is also claiming the verdict was against the weight of the evidence,we reject that claim (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]; see also People v Rayam, 94 NY2d557 [2000]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.