People v Hill

People v Hill 2017 NY Slip Op 01075 Decided on February 10, 2017 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 10, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
115 KA 14-01373

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

ANGEL HILL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SHERRY A. CHASE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (NICHOLAS TEXIDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah A. Haendiges, J.), rendered May 12, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her following a nonjury trial of, inter alia, assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]). Defendant's general motion for a trial order of dismissal did not preserve for our review her contentions that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that the victim sustained a physical injury (see People v Lewis, 129 AD3d 1546, 1547, lv denied 26 NY3d 969), and that she is liable for the conduct of friends and family members based upon a theory of accessorial liability (see People v Crawford, 199 AD2d 406, 406). In any event, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is legally sufficient to establish that the victim sustained a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) (see People v Smith, 45 AD3d 1483, 1483, lv denied 10 NY3d 771), and that defendant is liable for the assaultive conduct of others under Penal Law § 20.00 (see People v Torres, 108 AD3d 474, 475, lv denied 22 NY3d 998).

Inasmuch as the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence, defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to preserve defendant's legal sufficiency challenge for our review (see People v Brown, 96 AD3d 1561, 1562, lv denied 19 NY3d 1024). With respect to the further alleged instances of ineffectiveness, we conclude that the record as a whole establishes that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; People v Carrasquillo, 142 AD3d 1359, 1359).

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: February 10, 2017

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court