Majority
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2], [4]) and one count each of robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [4]) and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [2] [a]), defendant contends that Supreme Court failed to comply with CPL 310.30 in responding to three notes from the jury during its deliberation. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention with respect to the second and third jury notes. We conclude that the court provided defense counsel with notice of the content thereof and with the substance of the court’s intended response (cf. People v Cook, 85 NY2d 928 , 931 [1995]), and defendant failed to object at that time (see People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509 , 516 [1995]; People v Cooley, 48 AD3d
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 , 349 [2007]), we reject defendant’s further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 , 495 [1987]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
Cases cited
- People v. Cook 85 NY2d 928 at 931 p. 1582
- People v. Starling 85 NY2d 509 at 516 p. 1582
- People v. DeRosario 81 NY2d 801 at 803 p. 1583
- People v. Kadarko 14 NY3d 426 at 428-429 p. 1583
- People v. Ming Yuen 222 AD2d 613 p. 1583
- People v. Danielson 9 NY3d 342 at 349 p. 1583
- People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 1583