10134[M-1879. & M-2032]. IN RE DOUGLAS LATTA, pet, v. HON. MAXWELL J. WILEY, ETC. res—DOUGLAS LATTA, PETITIONER PRO SE. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (John T. Bandler of counsel), for John T. Bandler, res — THE ABOVE-NAMED PETITIONER HAVING PRESENTED APPLICATIONS TO THIS COURT PRAYING FOR AN ORDER, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES, AND FOR RELATED RELIEF, NOW, UPON READING AND fiLING THE PAPERS IN SAID PROCEEDING, AND DUE DELIBERATION HAVING BEEN HAD THEREON, IT IS UNANIMOUSLY ORDERED THAT THE APPLICATIONS BE AND THE SAME HEREBY ARE DENIED, AND THE PETITION DISMISSED, WITHOUT COSTS OR DISBURSEMENTS. MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, FREEDMAN, GISCHE, JJ. [M-1880 & M-2033]IN RE ANNA CIANO, pet, v. HON. MAXWELL J. WILEY, ETC. res — ANNA CIANO, PETITIONER PRO SE. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (John T. Bandler of counsel), for John T. Bandler, res — THE ABOVE-NAMED PETITIONER HAVING PRESENTED APPLICATIONS TO THIS COURT PRAYING FOR AN ORDER, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES, AND FOR RELATED RELIEF, NOW, UPON READING AND fiLING THE PAPERS IN SAID PROCEEDING, AND DUE DELIBERATION HAVING BEEN HAD THEREON, IT IS UNANIMOUSLY ORDERED THAT THE APPLICATIONS BE AND THE SAME HEREBY ARE DENIED, AND THE PETITION DISMISSED, WITHOUT COSTS OR DISBURSEMENTS. TOM, J.P., ACOSTA, RENWICK, DEGRASSE, RICHTER, JJ. 10136PEOPLE, res, v. CELSO ALVAREZ, def-ap — Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Susan H. Salomon of counsel), for ap — CELSO ALVAREZ, APPELLANT PRO SE. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Susan Gliner of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered June 22, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (three counts) and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations, and its rejection of defendant’s theory that he was a victim of the robbery rather than a participant. The testimony of the cooperating accomplice was amply supported by the testimony of other witnesses, as well as other evidence, including, among other things, the telephone records of defendant and his accomplices from the night of the robbery.
