Skip navigation


91 N.Y.2d 987, 697 N.E.2d 177, 674 N.Y.S.2d 276 (1998).
May 7, 1998

2 No. 49

[98 NY Int. 0050]
Decided May 7, 1998

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.

Paul Skip Laisure, for appellant.
Melissa S. Horlick, for respondent.


The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was found guilty, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree. On his appeal to the Appellate Division, defendant contended that thetrial court committed reversible error when it refused to grant his request that the jury be given an interested witness instruction ( see, People v Agosto, 73 NY2d 963, 967; 1 CJI[NY] 7.03; see also, People v Le Mieux, 51 NY2d 981; CPL 300.10[5]). In unanimously affirming the judgment of conviction, that Court held that defendant's contention was unpreserved for appellate review (__AD2d__). We agree.

As a general proposition, a defendant need not submit specific proposed language, either orally or in writing, to accompany a request for a jury instruction ( see generally, People v Leisner, 73 NY2d 140, 147 148; compare, People v Celestino, 201 AD2d 91, 97). Under the circumstances of this case, however, defendant's failure to specify to the trial court on the record the particular witness for which the instruction was requested, although given an opportunity to do so, renders defendant's claim of error unreviewable here ( see, CPL 470.05[2]; compare, People v Karabinas, 63 NY2d 871, 872, cert denied 470 US 1087; People v Loines, 197 AD2d 351, lv denied 82 NY2d 926).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Decided May 7, 1998