| People v Gilocompo |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01664 [125 AD3d 1000] |
| February 25, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lazaro Gilocompo, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Tammy Linn of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, and Laura T. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Hollie, J.), rendered June 20, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (twocounts) and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting hisconvictions is unpreserved for appellate review, since he failed to move for a trial orderof dismissal specifically directed at the errors he now claims (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Hawkins, 11NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see Peoplev Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish his identity as one of the perpetrators (see People v Jenkins, 93 AD3d 861, 861 [2012]).Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfiedthat the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his SixthAmendment right to confrontation under Bruton v United States (391 US 123[1968]) and Crawford v Washington (541 US 36 [2004]) was violated by theadmission into evidence of statements made by a nontestifying codefendant to a detectivefollowing the codefendant's arrest, as well as by certain remarks made by the prosecutorduring summation that were related to those statements (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Jenkins, 93 AD3d at 861; People v Reid, 71 AD3d 699, 699-700 [2010]). In anyevent, those contentions are without merit. With respect to the challenged statements,each one, taken individually, did not directly implicate the defendant (see People vMelendez, 285 AD2d 819, 821-822 [2001]). Furthermore, for the same reason, thedefendant's contentions about the remarks made by the prosecutor in summation, which,in effect, reiterated the statements at issue, are also without merit. Moreover, the remarksconstituted fair comment on the evidence and testimony (see People v Herb, 110 AD3d829 [2013]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Duffyand LaSalle, JJ., concur.