| People v Pilgrim |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08410 [101 AD3d 435] |
| December 6, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ronald Pilgrim, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Noah J. Chamoy of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John W. Carter, J.), rendered May 20, 2008,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to aterm of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). There is nobasis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The eyewitness testimony of defendant'syoung son was extensively corroborated.
The court properly exercised its discretion in conducting certain proceedings on an ex parte,in camera basis (see CPL 240.90 [3]; People v Contreras, 12 NY3d 268, 273 [2009]). The principal resultof these proceedings was the issuance of protective orders (see CPL 240.50) that delayeddisclosure of the People's intention to call defendant's son as a witness. The delay wasappropriate under the circumstances of the case, and, in any event, disclosure was made beforethe juncture set forth in CPL 240.45 for disclosure of witness statements. Defendant was notprejudiced by the ex parte nature of the proceedings. He was not deprived of any opportunity toimpeach any witness concerning material matters revealed ex parte, including issues regardinghis son's mental condition. When it was revealed that defendant's son had been seeing a therapist,defense counsel recognized that she could subpoena his therapy records, but she elected not to doso.
Defendant did not preserve his constitutional claims concerning the ex parte proceedings, orany of his constitutional and nonconstitutional claims regarding medical evidence, theprosecutor's summation, or the court's acceptance of the jury's verdict. We reject defendant'sargument that the latter claim involved a mode of proceedings error exempt from preservationrequirements (see People vWilliams, 16 NY3d 480 [2011]; see also People v Rodriguez, 276 AD2d 326[1st Dept 2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 733 [2001]; People v Perez, 236 AD2d 298[1997]). We decline to review these claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding,[*2]we reject each of these claims on the merits.Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Richter, Román and Clark, JJ.