| People v Gregory |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 02646 [160 AD3d 894] |
| April 18, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Paul Gregory, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant, andappellant pro se.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Solomon Neubort, andAvshalom Yotam of counsel; Aleena R. Peerzada on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Neil JonFiretog, J.), rendered November 5, 2014, convicting him of murder in the second degree,attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial,after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppressidentification evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court abdicated its judicial function by allowingprospective jurors who concluded that they could not be fair and impartial to opt out of servingon the jury without further inquiry is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v King, 27 NY3d147, 157 [2016]; People vSantos, 150 AD3d 1270, 1271 [2017]; People v Cunningham, 119 AD3d 601, 601 [2014]; People v McGhee, 4 AD3d 485,485 [2004]) and, in any event, without merit.
The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the photo array andlineup identification procedures were unduly suggestive is unpreserved for appellate review,since, at the Wade hearing (see United States v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]), hefailed to raise the specific grounds upon which he now challenges the procedures (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People vMartin, 116 AD3d 981, 982 [2014]; People v Fields, 66 AD3d 799, 799 [2009]). In any event, thePeople established in the first instance that the pretrial identification procedures were notimproper, and the [*2]defendant failed to establish that they wereunduly suggestive (see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335-336 [1990]; People vMartin, 116 AD3d at 982).
Additionally, contrary to the defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief,the jury's verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. In fulfilling our responsibility toconduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342,348-349 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view thewitnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383,410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the recordhere, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
Further, the defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that he wasdeprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v Porter, 119 AD3d438, 439 [2014]). The defendant received effective assistance of counsel under the state andfederal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; People v Leach, 137 AD3d 1300,1302 [2016]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 700 [1984]). He failed todemonstrate that his attorney's decision not to present certain evidence or elicit testimony aboutthe alleged shooter in an unrelated incident had any reasonable possibility of affecting theoutcome or depriving him of a fair trial (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US at 691).Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.