| People v Williams |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08751 [123 AD3d 527] |
| December 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Corey Williams, Appellant. |
Robert DiDio & Associates, Kew Gardens (Danielle Muscatello of counsel), forappellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Susan Axelrod of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered June9, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the seconddegree, assault in the first degree, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon inthe second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 18 years, unanimouslyaffirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weightof the evidence (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There was ample evidence to supportdefendant's accessorial liability (see Penal Law § 20.00). Amongother things, defendant handed a pistol to his accomplice, after having apparently rackedthe weapon's slide in preparation for firing. There is no reasonable explanation fordefendant's conduct, viewed in totality, other than that he shared his companion'shomicidal intent (see e.g. People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830 [1988]).
The court properly denied defendant's request for a justification charge, since therewas no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant,to support that charge (see People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299, 301-302 [1982]).There was no reasonable view to support either the objective or subjective aspects(see People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96 [1986]) of the justification defense (see People v Singleton, 39AD3d 375 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 851 [2007]).
The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable limits ondefendant's cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Since defendant never asserted aconstitutional right to pursue any precluded inquiries, his constitutional claim isunpreserved (see People vLane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]), and we decline to review it in the interest ofjustice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits (see Delaware v VanArsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]). The restrictions imposed by the courtgenerally went to matters of form rather than substance, and defendant receivedsufficient latitude in which to impeach witnesses.
Defendant's argument that the first-degree assault count should have been dismissedas [*2]an inclusory concurrent count following theattempted murder conviction is without merit (see People v Green, 56 NY2d 427[1982]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Sweeny, J.P.,Renwick, DeGrasse, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.