| People v Grant |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 01696 [137 AD3d 938] |
| March 9, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Wilbur M. Grant, Appellant. |
Ostrer & Associates, P.C., Chester, NY (Benjamin Ostrer and Marissa Tuohy ofcounsel), for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Elizabeth L. Schulz and AndrewR. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County(Freehill, J.), rendered June 13, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of marijuanain the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the CountyCourt, Orange County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
We reject the defendant's contention that the prosecutor violated the trial court'sruling, in effect, pursuant to CPL 710.30, precluding the defendant's statement to anarcotics investigator regarding the combination to a safe in the defendant's barn, byintroducing evidence of the defendant's statement during the trial. The prosecutor did notviolate the court's ruling. The defendant's related challenge to the prosecutor's summationis unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), because defensecounsel's objection was general in nature and his motion for a mistrial, made after thecompletion of summations, was untimely (see People v Malave, 7 AD3d 542, 542 [2004]). In anyevent, the challenged remark was fair comment on the evidence (see People vAshwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-111 [1976]; People v Weathers, 124 AD3d 702, 703 [2015]).
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining that thejury should be required to continue deliberations following jury notes expressing aninability to reach a verdict (see People v Dacus, 215 AD2d 578, 579 [1995];People v Bastien, 180 AD2d 691, 692 [1992]). To the extent the defendantcontends that the court erred in accepting a partial verdict, this contention is unpreservedfor appellate review (see Peoplev Urbaniak, 70 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2010]), and, in any event, without merit(see CPL 310.70 [1] [a]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Millerand LaSalle, JJ., concur.