People v Bellman
2013 NY Slip Op 08261 [112 AD3d 732]
December 11, 2013
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 29, 2014


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
James Bellman, Appellant.

[*1]Paula Schwartz Frome, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg and MonicaM.C. Leiter of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Sullivan, J.), rendered August 3, 2011, convicting him of assault in the third degree andmenacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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, 348 [2007]), wenevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hearthe testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004],cert denied 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 notagainst the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in denying, without a hearing, hismotion to set aside the verdict due to improper juror conduct (see CPL 330.30[2]) is without merit. The Supreme Court properly determined that even if the allegationswere true, the alleged misconduct did not affect a substantial right of the defendant(see People v Rodriguez, 100 NY2d 30, 35 [2003]; People v Irizarry, 83NY2d 557, 561 [1994]).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor'scomment in summation on his pre-arrest silence is unpreserved for appellate review sincehe failed to raise that specific objection at trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Beauliere, 36 AD3d623 [2007]; People v Materon, 276 AD2d 718 [2000]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Lott, Austinand Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.