People v. Shawn Parks

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We conclude that, based on the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case viewed in totality, defendant was provided meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 136 , 146-147; People v Trait, 139 AD2d 937 , lv denied 72 NY2d 867 ). We further conclude that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a separate trial (see, People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75 , 87, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 US 905 ; People v Shepherd, 176 AD2d 766 , lv denied 79 NY2d 832 ). Defendant failed to establish that his defense and codefendant’s defense were so antagonistic and in irreconcilable conflict as to require separate trials (see, People v Shepherd, supra; see generally, People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174 , 183). Because no objection was made to the People’s improper denigration of the defense and use of the term "red herring” (see, People v Clemons, 166 AD2d 363 , 366), those errors have not been preserved for our review (CPL 470.05 [2]); we decline to reach them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice because they did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, CPL 470.15 [6]).