| People v Pelosi |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03869 [128 AD3d 733] |
| May 6, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Daniel J. Pelosi, Appellant. |
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Richard E. Mischel and Lisa R.Marlow Wolland of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael Blakey and ThomasCostello of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R.Doyle, J.), rendered January 25, 2005, convicting him of murder 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 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony,and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; Peoplev Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that certain allegedly improper conduct by the prosecutorduring her cross-examination of him and throughout her summation had the cumulativeeffect of depriving him of his right to a fair trial is largely unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Osorio, 49 AD3d 562, 563-564 [2008]). In anyevent, most of the challenged conduct was not improper and, under the circumstances ofthis case, the cumulative effect of any improper conduct did not deprive the defendant ofa fair trial (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401 [1981]; People vOutler, 118 AD2d 819, 820 [1986]).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should havedismissed the indictment on the ground that the grand jury proceeding was defectivewithin the meaning of CPL 210.35 (5) (see People v Walton, 70 AD3d 871, 873 [2010]; Peoplev Seymour, 255 AD2d 866, 867-868 [1998]). The defendant's contention that theSupreme Court should have conducted a Frye hearing (see Frye v UnitedStates, 293 F 1013 [DC Cir 1923]) is unpreserved for appellate review (seePeople v Angelo, 88 NY2d 217, 223 [1996]; People v Dashosh, 59 AD3d 731, 732 [2009]) and, in anyevent, without merit (see Peoplev Oddone, 22 NY3d 369, 375-377 [2013]). Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Maltese andDuffy, JJ., concur.