BROWNING, DENNIS, PEOPLE v

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department [408] KA 12-00507 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENNIS BROWNING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. MICHAEL J. STACHOWSKI, P.C., BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. STACHOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (NICHOLAS T. TEXIDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D’Amico, J.), rendered January 12, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 ), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in admitting the testimony of a police officer regarding the meaning of coded language used in a recorded conversation. Contrary to defendant’s contention, expert testimony interpreting the meaning of words is not restricted to narcotics cases (see People v Inoa, 109 AD3d 765, 766 ; People v Pendelton, 90 AD3d 1234 , 1235 n 2, lv denied 18 NY3d 996 ), and the record establishes that the police officer was qualified to interpret the language based on his experience (see Matott v Ward, 48 NY2d 455, 459 ; People v Wyant, 98 AD3d 1277 , 12771278). Entered: May 2, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court