| People v Williams |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 00151 [168 AD3d 770] |
| January 9, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Devon Williams, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Angad Singh of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A. Grob, and AriehSchulman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruth E.Shillingford, J.), rendered September 25, 2014, convicting him of robbery in the second degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the admission into evidence at trial of a photograph depictinghim and other individuals, printed from a social media website, was unduly prejudicial because itsuggested that he was affiliated with a street gang. However, that contention was affirmativelywaived when the defendant's trial counsel stated "I have no objection" to the admission of thephotograph after stipulating to an instruction that addressed counsel's concerns by advising thejury that the photograph was not being admitted to allege any gang affiliation and that none of theindividuals depicted therein were known to have any gang affiliation (see People v Robinson, 143 AD3d744, 745-746 [2016]; People vArmstrong, 138 AD3d 877, 878-879 [2016]; People v Gega, 74 AD3d 1229, 1231 [2010]). The additionalchallenges to the admission of the photograph which the defendant advances on appeal areunpreserved for appellate review, since they were not raised at trial (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Donovan, 59 NY2d 834, 836 [1983]; People v Velez-Garriga, 159 AD3d 928, 929 [2018]; People v Sparagano, 153 AD3d1367, 1368 [2017]). In this regard, the defendant's related contention that his trial counselwas ineffective in failing to object on these additional grounds is unavailing, as the defendant hasfailed to establish "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" (People vRivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]) for counsel's actions (see People v Barboni, 21 NY3d 393, 405-406 [2013]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Duffy and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.