| People v Williams |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06762 [99 AD3d 495] |
| October 9, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JamalWilliams, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila L. Bautista of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cassandra Mullen, J.), rendered January 20,2011, as amended February 10, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attemptedrobbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a termof six years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. The prompt showup near thescene of the crime was not conducted in an unduly suggestive manner (see e.g. People v Gatling, 38 AD3d239, 240 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 865 [2007]). Defendant did not preservehis current challenge to an officer's remark at the showup, and we decline to review it in theinterest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the officer's statement simply cautionedthe victim against making an identification unless he was certain. This did not render theidentification suggestive (see People vGuitierres, 82 AD3d 1116, 1117-1118 [2d Dept 2011]). Instead, it tended to reduce therisk of misidentification.
The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight ofthe evidence (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). Moreover, the evidence was overwhelming.Regardless of any weaknesses in the victim's testimony, defendant's guilt was established byextensive circumstantial evidence.
By failing to object, by making belated objections (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]), or by failing torequest any specific further relief after the court delivered a curative instruction (see People vHeide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]),defendant failed to preserve his present challenges to the prosecutor's summation, and we declineto review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal(see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976[1998]; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], lvdenied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).
We have considered and rejected defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim (seePeople v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466US 668 [1984]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Rom�n,JJ.[*2]