PEOPLE v. BROWN

With respect to the judgment in which defendant was convicted of various assault-related crimes, the court properly exercised its discretion in granting the People's motion for consolidation and in denying defendant's subsequent motion for severance. The incidents involved the same or similar statutory provisions and were joinable pursuant to CPL 200.20(2)(c) (see, People v. Streitferdt, 169 A.D.2d 171, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1015;People v. Maldonado, 75 A.D.2d 558). Under the discretionary severance provision (CPL 200.20[c]), severance was unwarranted since defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for the severance or that he suffered undue prejudice from the joinder. The proof as to each crime was equally strong and was presented separately, making it easy for the jury to analyze it with respect to each case. Defendant has also failed to make a convincing showing that he had important testimony to give concerning one case and a strong need to refrain from testifying in the other (see,People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1; People v. Griffith, 177 A.D.2d 386, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 857).

In the assault trial, the court properly exercised its discretion in declining to read back a portion of the complainant's cross-examination to the jury since it was not part of the information requested and it did not impeach any of that testimony. Accordingly, the court meaningfully responded to the jury's request (see, People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126).

In the assault trial, the court properly exercised its discretion when it limited cross-examination of an officer concerning the officer's knowledge of defendant's representation by counsel on an unrelated case, since this was irrelevant to the issue of whether the statement defendant made to the officer was voluntary (see, People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331).

Contrary to defendant's argument, the verdict in the narcotics trial was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence.

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

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