| People v King |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07062 [110 AD3d 1100] |
| October 30, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Thomas King, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Sarah S.Rabinowitz of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Honorof, J.), rendered July 20, 2011, convicting him of assault in the second degree andcriminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencinghim to a determinate term of imprisonment of six years plus a period of three years ofpostrelease supervision on the conviction of assault in the second degree, and a definiteterm of incarceration of one year on the count of criminal possession of a weapon in thefourth degree, to run concurrently.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest ofjustice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction ofassault in the second degree from six years to four years; as so modified, the judgment isaffirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to disprove hisjustification defense beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492-493 [2008]; People v Huddleston, 101AD3d 901 [2012]; People vCintron, 72 AD3d 699 [2010]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the lightmost favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621[1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant's justificationdefense beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review of theevidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the jury's rejection of thejustification defense was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in limiting thedefendant's cross-examination of a certain prosecution witness (see People v Rivera, 98 AD3d529 [2012]; People vBaez, 59 AD3d 635 [2009]; People v Stevens, 45 AD3d 610, 611 [2007]).
The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Rivera, J.P.,Balkin, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.