Majority
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court erred in charging the jury on Penal Law § 35.27 (the “no-sock law”) immediately after charging the jury on resisting arrest (see People v Basora, 75 NY2d 992 , 994 [1990]; People v Henry, 306 AD2d 539 [2003]; People v Slack, 131 AD2d 610 [1987]). In any event, we note that the defendant requested that the court charge the jury with respect to Penal Law § 35.27. The court later clarified that the instruction related to the justification defense. Moreover, the charge did not blur the distinction between authorized and unauthorized arrests or leave the jury with the impression that the defendant would be guilty of resisting an unauthorized arrest if he used force (see People v Commesso, 184 AD2d 719 , 721 [1992]; cf. People v Rosa, 277 AD2d 506 , 507 [2000]; People v Carneglia, 63 AD2d 734 , 735 [1978]; People v Harewood, 63 AD2d 876 , 877 [1978]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 at 621 p. 581
- People v. Riccobono 282 AD2d 552 at 552-553 p. 581
- People v. Coulanges 264 AD2d 853 p. 581
- People v. Romero 7 NY3d 633 p. 581
- People v. Basora 75 NY2d 992 at 994 p. 581
- People v. Slack 131 AD2d 610 p. 581
- People v. Commesso 184 AD2d 719 at 721 p. 581
- People v. Rosa 277 AD2d 506 at 507 p. 581
- People v. Carneglia 63 AD2d 734 at 735 p. 581