People v Thiam (Sohibou)

[*1] People v Thiam (Sohibou) 2007 NY Slip Op 51665(U) [16 Misc 3d 136(A)] Decided on August 30, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 30, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Davis, Klein Heitler, JJ
570039/05.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Sohibou Thiam, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Harris, J.), rendered November 18, 2004, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of criminal trespass in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment of conviction (Gerald Harris, J.), rendered November 18, 2004, affirmed.

Defendant did not seek a trial order of dismissal based on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence, and thus his present challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, evidence that defendant entered a New York City subway platform by jumping over a turnstile, without paying the required fare, was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of
third-degree criminal trespass (Penal Law §140.10[a]; (see People v Marshall, 187 Misc 2d 423 [2000]). Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations regarding credibility.

Defendant failed to establish a Rosario violation. The record does not support defendant's claim that the desk sergeant's log book "contained the recorded statements of the arresting officer, or that such statements, if any, related to the subject matter of his testimony" (People v Johnson, 286 AD2d 641, 642 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 683 [2001]; see People v Ventura, 298 Ad2d 172 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 620 [2003]). To the extent that defendant is raising a claim under Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), such claim is unpreserved and unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur
Decision Date: August 30, 2007