| People v Jordan |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01288 [125 AD3d 787] |
| February 11, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ronnell Jordan, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., and White & Case LLP, New York, N.Y.(Kevin C. Adam, James Trainor, and Louis O'Neill of counsel), for appellant (one brieffiled).
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, AmyAppelbaum, and Joshua S. Levy of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J.Goldberg, J.), rendered November 29, 2012, convicting him of attempted assault in thefirst degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon inthe second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court discharged potential jurors based uponhardship without conducting a sufficient inquiry is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Johnson, 116AD3d 883, 883 [2014]; People v King, 110 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2013]; People v Casanova, 62 AD3d88, 92 [2009]; People vToussaint, 40 AD3d 1017, 1017-1018 [2007]) and, in any event, is withoutmerit (see People v Johnson, 116 AD3d at 883; People v King, 110 AD3dat 1006; People v Umana,76 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2010]; People v Toussaint, 40 AD3d at1017-1018).
The defendant's main witness testified at trial that the defendant was not present atthe crime scene at the time of the subject shooting. The defendant contends that thePeople failed to establish a sufficient foundation for the admission into evidence of therebuttal testimony of an Assistant District Attorney (hereinafter the ADA) that, during apretrial interview with the ADA, the witness did not aver that the defendant was absentfrom the crime scene at the time of the subject shooting. Contrary to the defendant'sassertion, the defense witness was properly impeached by way of this rebuttal testimony,as the defense witness acknowledged at trial that he knew that he was to be interviewedby the ADA with respect to charges that the defendant committed the instant offenses,but nonetheless failed to provide any such exculpatory information to the ADA. In thesecircumstances, the witness's omission of this critical information from his statements tothe ADA was a proper basis for the impeachment of the witness (see People vMiller, 89 NY2d 1077, 1079 [1997]; People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311, 321 n4 [1980]).
Contrary to the defendant's assertions, he was not deprived of a fair trial by the [*2]admission into evidence of testimony that the defense'smain witness allegedly attempted to bribe the complainant, and urged the complainantnot to testify against the defendant. The Supreme Court gave a prompt and appropriateinstruction following this testimony, informing the jury that there was no evidence thatthe defendant authorized the alleged bribe, and that the testimony had been offered onlyon the issue of the defense witness's credibility. As the jury is presumed to have followedthe trial court's instruction, any possible prejudice to the defendant was cured by thisinstruction (see People vDiPippo, 117 AD3d 1076, 1077 [2014], lv granted 24 NY3d 1038[2014]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.