People v. Delancey

• Decision Date: 17 April 2012
• Citation: 942 N.Y.S.2d 170,94 A.D.3d 1015,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02892
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Roger DELANCEY, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02892
94 A.D.3d 1015
942 N.Y.S.2d 170

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Roger DELANCEY, appellant.

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

April 17, 2012.

[942 N.Y.S.2d 171]

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ARIEL E. BELEN, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

[94 A.D.3d 1015] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered June 11, 2009, [94 A.D.3d 1016] convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony regarding two prior disputes he had with one of the victims, one of which occurred several weeks prior to the subject incident, and the other of which occurred only hours before the subject incident, was relevant to his motive and provided background information on the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the victims, and the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice to the defendant ( see People v. Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 903 N.E.2d 263; People v. Cook, 93 N.Y.2d 840, 688 N.Y.S.2d 89, 710 N.E.2d 654; People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808; People v. Gamble, 72 A.D.3d 544, 546, 899 N.Y.S.2d 207, affd. 18 N.Y.3d 386, 941 N.Y.S.2d 1, 964 N.E.2d 372; People v. Marji, 43 A.D.3d 961, 841 N.Y.S.2d 361; People v. Williams, 27 A.D.3d 673, 811 N.Y.S.2d 124). Moreover, the Supreme Court's cautionary instructions limited any potential prejudice to the defendant ( see People v. Torres, 78 A.D.3d 866, 910 N.Y.S.2d 381; People v. Marji, 43 A.D.3d 961, 841 N.Y.S.2d 361; People v. Ortiz, 273 A.D.2d 482, 710 N.Y.S.2d 254).

The contentions raised in the defendant's pro se supplemental brief that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict on the counts of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919). In any event, 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...