People v Cartegena (Daniel)

[*1] People v Cartegena (Daniel) 2007 NY Slip Op 50344(U) [14 Misc 3d 140(A)] Decided on March 5, 2007 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 5, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., McCooe, Davis, JJ
570168/05.

People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Daniel Cartegena, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J. at jury trial and sentence; Ellen M. Coin, J. at resentence), rendered February 24, 2004, as amended February 2, 2005, convicting him of endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), criminal mischief in the fourth degree and harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

PER CURIAM

Judgment of conviction (Ruth Pickholz, J. at jury trial and sentence: Ellen M. Coin, J.), rendered February 24, 2004, as amended February 2. 2005, affirmed.

Defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal was insufficiently specific (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]) to preserve his present challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the criminal mischief conviction, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that there was legally sufficient evidence to establish, as the court's unobjected to charge required, that defendant's mother had an ownership interest in the television set that defendant admittedly "smashed".

Read as a whole and in the context of the jury notes, the court's supplemental instructions on the child endangerment counts conveyed the proper legal principles and did not impermissibly broaden the prosecution's trial theory or dilute its burden of proof. In any event, were we to find any error in the supplemental charge, we would find it to be harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (see People v Footman, 31 AD3d 290 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 812 [2006]). Similarly, any error in the court's minor modification of its Sandoval ruling was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Duggins, l AD3d 450 [2003], affd 3 NY3d 522 [2004]).
This constitutes the decision and order of the [*2]
court.
Decision Date: March 5, 2007