| People v Papas |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07065 [110 AD3d 1102] |
| October 30, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Papas, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Sholom J.Twersky of counsel; Daniel Berman on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DelGiudice, J.), rendered May 17, 2010, convicting him of attempted assault in the firstdegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court improperly curtailed defensecounsel's summation argument regarding the lack of a motive. While we agree that theSupreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in sustaining the prosecutor'sobjections to the argument (see generally People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109[1976]; People v Sangamino, 258 NY 85, 88 [1932]; cf. People v Torain,266 AD2d 322 [1999]), the error was harmless, as the evidence of the defendant's guiltwas overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the error contributed to thedefendant's conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).The defendant's contentions that the Supreme Court gave incomplete instructions withrespect to the issue of motive and that the errors deprived him of his constitutional rightto a fair trial are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Lane, 7 NY3d888, 889 [2006]; People v Rios, 60 NY2d 764, 766 [1983]; People v Rodriguez, 91 AD3d797, 797 [2012]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest ofjustice jurisdiction (see People vAddison, 107 AD3d 730, 731-732 [2013]; People v Hazare, 105 AD3d 975 [2013]).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony,and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], certdenied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not againstthe weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplementalbrief, that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137,147 [1981]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).[*2]
The sentence imposed was not excessive (seePeople v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, areunpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review them in the exercise of ourinterest of justice jurisdiction. Rivera, J.P., Sgroi, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.