| People v Brown |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03007 [138 AD3d 1014] |
| April 20, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Bijan Brown, Appellant. |
Clare J. Degnan, White Plains, NY (Jacqueline F. Oliva of counsel), forappellant.
James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Hae Jin Liu andLaurie G. Sapakoff of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Zambelli, J.), rendered January 9, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the third degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there was a sufficient factual predicate tosupport a jury instruction on consciousness of guilt (see People v Arriaga, 77 AD3d 846, 847 [2010]; People v Solimini, 69 AD3d657, 658 [2010]). There was evidence presented at trial indicating that after thesubject robbery was committed the defendant went home and altered his appearance bychanging his clothes before going out again (see People v Sage, 23 NY3d 16, 26 [2014]; People v Sabines, 121 AD3d1409, 1410 [2014]). The defendant's further argument that the language of theconsciousness-of-guilt charge was improper and misleading is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Arriaga, 77 AD3d at 847) and, inany event, without merit. The County Court's charge conveyed the proper legal standardwith respect to evidence of consciousness of guilt (see People v Newman, 107 AD3d 827, 829 [2013];People v London, 248 AD2d 554, 555 [1998]). The court instructed the jury onthe weight to be given to the evidence, properly left to the jury the question of whetherthe evidence indicated consciousness of guilt, and discussed the possibility of aninnocent explanation for the conduct at issue (see People v Arriaga, 77 AD3d at847; People v Solimini, 69 AD3d at 658; People v Robinson, 10 AD3d 696 [2004]).
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred by instructing the jury as toan alibi defense is waived because the court granted the defendant's request to providethis charge to the jury (see People v Ford, 62 NY2d 275, 283 [1984]; People vWhalen, 59 NY2d 273, 280 [1983]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Balkin, J.P., Roman,Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.