People v. Cuffy

• Decision Date: 12 October 1999
• Citation: 696 N.Y.S.2d 828
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Tene CUFFY, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 828

696 N.Y.S.2d 828

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Tene CUFFY, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Oct. 12, 1999.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Michael Gore, and Gwen M. Schoenfeld of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered October 29, 1997, convicting her of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 ).

The defendant's challenges to certain portions of the prosecutor's summation are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818, 819, 455 N.Y.S.2d 593, 441 N.E.2d 1111) or without merit.

The defendant's challenge to the court's charge is also unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Robinson, 88 N.Y.2d 1001, 1001-1002, 648 N.Y.S.2d 869, 671 N.E.2d 1266; People v. Jackson, 76 N.Y.2d 908, 909, 563 N.Y.S.2d 42, 564 N.E.2d 652). In any event, the instructions as a whole adequately conveyed the appropriate principles of law (see, People v. Melendez, 205 A.D.2d 392, 613 N.Y.S.2d 395).

"Mere eligibility for youthful offender status does not mandate youthful offender treatment, and the grant of such a benefit lies wholly within the discretion of the court" (People v. Vera, 206 A.D.2d 494, 614 N.Y.S.2d 547; see, People v. Barr, 168 A.D.2d 625, 563 N.Y.S.2d 464; People v. Williams, 124 A.D.2d 615, 507 N.Y.S.2d 876). Here, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender status (see, People v. Vera, supra; People v. Hopkins, 163 A.D.2d 416, 558 N.Y.S.2d 137; People v. Granger, 82 A.D.2d 643, 442 N.Y.S.2d 793).

BRACKEN, J.P., O'BRIEN, FRIEDMANN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.