give instruction in New York

2024In any event, we conclude that "the failure of the court to give that instruction is of no moment, inasmuch as the testimony of the witness was in fact amply corroborated" ( People v Fortino , 61 AD3d 1410, 1411 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 925 [2009]; see People v Reed , 115 AD3d 1334 , 1336 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1024 [2014]; People v Peoples , 66 AD3d 1419 , 1419 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 843 [2010]).

2012“In any event, the failure of the court to give that instruction is of no moment, inasmuch as the testimony of the [accomplice] was in fact amply corroborated” (People v Peoples, 66 AD3d 1419 , 1419 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 843 [2010]).

2024In any event, we conclude that "the failure of the court to give that instruction is of no moment, inasmuch as the testimony of the witness was in fact amply corroborated" ( People v Fortino , 61 AD3d 1410, 1411 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 925 [2009]; see People v Reed , 115 AD3d 1334 , 1336 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1024 [2014]; People v Peoples , 66 AD3d 1419 , 1419 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 843 [2010]).

2014In any event, we conclude that “the failure of the court to give that instruction is of no moment, inasmuch as the testimony of the witness was in fact amply corroborated” (People v Fortino, 61 AD3d 1410, 1411 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 925 [2009]).

2024Consequently, we reject defendant's related contention that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request such an instruction ( see People v Clarke , 101 AD3d 1646 , 1647 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1097 [2013]; see also People v Covington , 222 AD3d 1166 , 1171 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 964 [2024]; People v Barber , 133 AD3d 868 , 870 [2d Dept 2015], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]; People v Leffler , 13 AD3d 164, 165 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 800 [2005]; see generally People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 155-156 [2005]).

2024Consequently, we reject defendant's related contention that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request such an instruction ( see People v Clarke , 101 AD3d 1646 , 1647 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1097 [2013]; see also People v Covington , 222 AD3d 1166 , 1171 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 964 [2024]; People v Barber , 133 AD3d 868 , 870 [2d Dept 2015], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]; People v Leffler , 13 AD3d 164, 165 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 800 [2005]; see generally People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 155-156 [2005]).

2024Consequently, we reject defendant's related contention that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request such an instruction ( see People v Clarke , 101 AD3d 1646 , 1647 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1097 [2013]; see also People v Covington , 222 AD3d 1166 , 1171 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 964 [2024]; People v Barber , 133 AD3d 868 , 870 [2d Dept 2015], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]; People v Leffler , 13 AD3d 164, 165 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 800 [2005]; see generally People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 155-156 [2005]).

2024Consequently, we reject defendant's related contention that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request such an instruction ( see People v Clarke , 101 AD3d 1646 , 1647 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1097 [2013]; see also People v Covington , 222 AD3d 1166 , 1171 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 964 [2024]; People v Barber , 133 AD3d 868 , 870 [2d Dept 2015], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]; People v Leffler , 13 AD3d 164, 165 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 800 [2005]; see generally People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 155-156 [2005]).

2014We reject that contention, inasmuch as defendant “failed to show the absence of a strategic explanation for defense counsel’s” alleged failures (People v Mendez, 77 AD3d 1312, 1312-1313 , lv denied 16 NY3d 799 ; see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 ).

2010The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of uncharged crimes and in failing to give a limiting instruction to the jury regarding use of this evidence is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant neither raised the arguments asserted on appeal, requested that the court give such an instruction to the jury, nor objected to the charge as given (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Willis, 69 AD3d 966 [2010]; People v Croswell, 63 AD3d 754 [2009]).

2010In any event, the trial court appropriately allowed the prosecutor to elicit evidence of the uncharged drug transaction to elucidate the relationship between the defendant and the victim, as well as the motive for the defendant’s act of unlawfully imprisoning the victim (see People v Mendez, 70 AD3d 861 [2010]; People v Sayers, 64 AD3d 728 [2009]).

2010The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of uncharged crimes and in failing to give a limiting instruction to the jury regarding use of this evidence is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant neither raised the arguments asserted on appeal, requested that the court give such an instruction to the jury, nor objected to the charge as given (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Willis, 69 AD3d 966 [2010]; People v Croswell, 63 AD3d 754 [2009]).

2010In any event, the trial court appropriately allowed the prosecutor to elicit evidence of the uncharged drug transaction to elucidate the relationship between the defendant and the victim, as well as the motive for the defendant’s act of unlawfully imprisoning the victim (see People v Mendez, 70 AD3d 861 [2010]; People v Sayers, 64 AD3d 728 [2009]).

2010Even assuming, arguendo, that County Court erred in denying defendant’s request to instruct the jury that the witness who supplied a weapon to defendant was an accomplice as a matter of law, thus requiring corroboration of his testimony (cf. People v Montanez, 57 AD3d 1366, 1367 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 857 [2009]), we conclude that “the failure of the court to give that instruction is of no moment, inasmuch as the testimony of the witness was in fact amply corroborated” (People v Fortino, 61 AD3d 1410, 1411 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 925 [2009]).

2010The contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief that the court erred in failing to submit to the jury the question whether that witness and another witness were accomplices as a matter of fact is not preserved for our review (see People v Balser, 185 AD2d 679 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 881 [1993]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

2009Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911 [2006]; People v Smith, 32 AD3d 1291, 1292 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 849 [2007]), and that contention is without merit in any event.

1977(Cf. Giovanniello v Germeroth, supra.) Here, however, the plaintiff, Ashdown, not only did not object to the instruction but affirmatively urged the court to give the instruction.

1975(People v Adams, 26 NY2d 129, 138-139 .) We now pass to the other issue, and initially note that there was no exception to the court’s charge.

1920(People v. Granger, 187 N. Y. 67 .) In my judgment, the crime of riot is defined by section 2090 of the Penal Law, and that section 2091 simply provides for the punishment of the crime.

1904(Storey v. Brennan, 15 N. Y. 524, 526 ; Thalheimer v. Lamont, 9 N. Y.