| People v Hansen |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 06661 [153 AD3d 1431] |
| September 27, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Nicholas Hansen, Appellant. |
Dorea Silverman, New York, NY, for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Caren C. Manzello of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Camacho,J.), rendered February 26, 2014, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree,criminal use of a firearm in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in thesecond degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminalsale of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree(seven counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of numerous drug sale and possessioncharges, together with charges of attempted murder in the second degree, criminal use of afirearm in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree (two counts). The defendant challenges only the conviction of attempted murder in thesecond degree, and, relatedly, the convictions of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to disprove hisjustification defense beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins,11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to disprove the defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt(see Penal Law § 35.15; People v Garcia, 89 AD3d 862, 862-863 [2011]; People v Seals, 78 AD3d 742[2010]). Moreover, upon our independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), weare satisfied that the jury's rejection of the justification defense and the verdict of guilt on thecount of attempted murder in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant's contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summationwere improper and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Martin,116 AD3d 981, 982 [2014]; Peoplev Santos, 105 AD3d 1064, 1065 [2013]). In [*2]anyevent, the challenged remarks were either fair comment on the evidence or fair response to thearguments made by defense counsel in summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d396, 399 [1981]).
The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the CountyCourt's justification charge was improper, as he failed to object to the charge (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Boley, 116AD3d 965, 966 [2014]). In any event, the contention is without merit.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel(see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi andDuffy, JJ., concur.