Decided on February 2, 2012
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.
Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta, Freedman, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Roger S. Hayes, J.), rendered May 9, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and three counts of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of two years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant did not preserve his claim that the jury's mixed verdict was repugnant, including his assertion that CPL 310.50(2) obligated the court to resubmit the case to the jury (see People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985 ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The jury reached different verdicts as to events that occurred on different dates. The gist of defendant's argument is that, under the evidence presented, it was illogical for the jury to reach different verdicts. However, a verdict may only be set aside as repugnant where the repugnancy is legal rather than factual (People v Muhammad, 17 NY3d 532 ).
To the extent defendant is also claiming the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, we reject that claim (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 ; see also People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: FEBRUARY 2, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...