Opinion
No. 2010-03565.
May 17, 2011.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered April 14, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Paula Schwartz Frome, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Douglas Noll and Laurie K. Gibbons of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Covello, J.P., Eng, Chambers and Miller, JJ.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the County Court's jury charge regarding intent is without merit ( see CJI2d[NY] Culpable Mental States — Intent). The County Court was not required to provide the charge in the precise language requested by the defendant ( see People v Samuels, 99 NY2d 20, 25-26; People v Dory, 59 NY2d 121, 129; People v Maldonado, 127 AD2d 855; People v Compitiello, 118 AD2d 720). Where, as here, the Trial Judge sufficiently explained all the applicable legal principles to the jury, he was not bound to use the specific language requested ( see People v Maldonado, 127 AD2d at 855; People v Dory, 59 NY2d at 129). Furthermore, the County Court's charge did not alter the People's theory as presented in the indictment or the facts as presented at trial ( see People v Charles, 61 NY2d 321, 326-329; People v Kaminski, 58 NY2d 886, 887; People v Faber, 64 AD3d 788; People v Jean, 146 AD2d 803, 804, aff'd 75 NY2d 744).
The defendant's remaining challenge to the adequacy of the County Court's response to a jury note requesting clarification of the concept of reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Romero, 71 AD3d 795, 796), and, in any event, is without merit ( see People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 303, cert denied 459 US 847; People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 684; People v Chase, 225 AD2d 789, 790; People v Walton, 220 AD2d 548).