People v Hightower

[*1] People v Hightower 2010 NY Slip Op 51882(U) [29 Misc 3d 131(A)] Decided on November 5, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 5, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570292/09.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Joseph Hightower, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Richard Ross, J.H.O.), rendered May 26, 2009, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of violating Port Authority Rules and Regulations Governing Operation of Hudson Tubes (McKinney's Uncons Laws of NY § 6861), and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Richard Ross, J.H.O.), rendered May 26, 2009, affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his present challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). Moreover, after applying the appropriate standard of review (see id. at 348-349), we conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Defendant failed to preserve his present contention that the trial court acted as a prosecutor and deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial (see People v Kello, 96 NY2d 740 [2001]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits (see People v DeLeyden, 10 NY2d 293 [1961]; People v Dudas, 1 Misc 3d 132[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51623[U] [2003]; cf. People v Arnold, 98 NY2d 63 [2002]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur
Decision Date: November 05, 2010