| People v McFarlane |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04780 [96 AD3d 879] |
| June 13, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JamelMcFarlane, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Michael J. Balchof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.),rendered October 9, 2009, convicting him of assault in the first degree, burglary in the firstdegree (6 counts), robbery in the first degree (3 counts), attempted robbery in the first degree (12counts), robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (2counts), attempted robbery in the second degree (4 counts), and criminal possession of a weaponin the third degree (2 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial by the SupremeCourt's refusal to postpone jury selection until he could obtain clothing more desirable to him. Itis clear from the record that the clothing the defendant wore did not bear the markings of prisongarb (see People v Roman, 35 NY2d 978, 979 [1975]; People v Johnston, 43 AD3d 1273,1274 [2007]; People v Oliveri, 29AD3d 330, 332 [2006]; People v Cornwall, 274 AD2d 744, 745 [2000]; People vReid, 137 AD2d 844, 845 [1988]).
Although the Supreme Court erred in admitting into evidence a certain statement that thedefendant made to a police detective which was not properly the subject of notice pursuant toCPL 710.30 (see People v Lopez, 84 NY2d 425, 428 [1994]), any error in admitting thetestimony was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and nosignificant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant toCPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Lott and Sgroi,JJ., concur.