| People v Bowman |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00024 [113 AD3d 1100] |
| January 3, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Joseph M. Bowman, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Patricia L. Dziuba of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.),rendered May 7, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, ofpredatory sexual assault against a child and endangering the welfare of a child.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a juryverdict of predatory sexual assault against a child (Penal Law § 130.96) andendangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve forour review his contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficientevidence both because he made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal andbecause he failed to renew his motion after presenting evidence (see People v Roman, 85 AD3d1630, 1630 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 821 [2011]; see also People v Hall, 106AD3d 1513, 1514 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 956 [2013]). In any event, weconclude that the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see generallyPeople v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Furthermore, viewing the evidence inlight of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is againstthe weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). "Althougha different result would not have been unreasonable, the jury was in the best position toassess the credibility of the witnesses and, on this record, it cannot be said that the juryfailed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded" (People v Orta, 12 AD3d1147, 1147 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 801 [2005]).
Defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial based on the prosecutor'simproper comments during summation and by an instruction that County Court gavewhile charging the jury is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant failed toobject to those instances of alleged misconduct or to the jury instruction (seeCPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant's contention as amatter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; see also People v Benton, 106AD3d 1451, 1451-1452 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1040 [2013]; People v Nunez, 51 AD3d1398, 1400 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 792 [2008]). Finally, we rejectdefendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel inasmuch as"the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [this] . . . case, viewed intotality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney providedmeaningful representation" (People v [*2]Baldi,54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Sconiers andWhalen, JJ.