PEOPLE v. DUSHAIN

Defendant's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and his related challenges to the court's charge are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the verdict as to each count was based on legally sufficient evidence. In particular, we note that defendant's various arguments concerning accomplice testimony, some of which are similar to arguments previously rejected by this Court on a codefendant's appeal ( People v. Green, 306 A.D.2d 174, 175, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 594), are unavailing ( see CPL 60.22; People v. Breland, 83 N.Y.2d 286, 293; People v. Cruz, 291 A.D.2d 1, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 752).

Defendant's challenges to the court's conduct of the trial are unpreserved ( see People v. Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the isolated instances to which defendant points do not support his assertion that the court was biased against him or that it deprived him of a fair trial. The conduct of which defendant complains either took place outside the jury's presence, or constituted proper rulings and permissible clarifying questions of witnesses ( see People v. Jamison, 47 N.Y.2d 882; People v. Gonzalez, 38 N.Y.2d 208, 210).

The court's rulings on uncharged crimes evidence were proper exercises of discretion that properly balanced the probative value and prejudicial effect of such evidence ( see generally People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241-242).

As we concluded with regard to the codefendant ( People v. Green, 306 A.D.2d at 175), defendant's challenges to the People's summation are unpreserved and without merit.

The record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.

M-1877 — People v. Carl Dushain

Motion seeking extension of time to file reply brief and for other related relief denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.