Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Darren Knight, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1999-05-10
Citations: 261 A.D.2d 487
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darren Knight, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 261
Pages: 487–488

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darren Knight, Appellant.
[687 NYS2d 904]

Opinion:
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), rendered October 18, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Evidence regarding the participation of the defendant and the People's witnesses in an operation to sell crack-cocaine was properly admitted to complete the narrative of the witnesses, and to aid the jury in its comprehension of the crimes (see, People v Till, 87 NY2d 835; People v Boyd, 230 AD2d 805; People v Hardwick, 140 AD2d 624).
Although the court expanded slightly upon the jury charge contained in the Criminal Jury Instructions (see, 1 CJI [NY] 7.06), the entire charge, viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed to the jury the correct rule to apply in arriving at its verdict (see, People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817; People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830; People v Dory, 59 NY2d 121; People v Owens, 202 AD2d 341; People v Calderon, 182 AD2d 770).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Robinson, 251 AD2d 354; People v Tallarine, 223 AD2d 738). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including the issue raised in his supplemental, pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.