Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered September 5, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOSEPH COVELLO, HOWARD MILLER & CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that because all of the evidence in the case was circumstantial, the Supreme Court should have given a circumstantial evidence charge to the jury. However, since the defendant did not request such a charge, or object to the charge as given, his contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v Reyes, 45 AD3d 785, 786). In any event, "this represents the exceptional case where the failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless error" (People v Brian, 84 NY2d 887, 889; see People v Lopez, 28 AD3d 234, 235).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; People v Lopez, 28 AD3d at 235).
DILLON, J.P., COVELLO, MILLER and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...