People v Gowdy (Vernon)

[*1] People v Gowdy (Vernon) 2013 NY Slip Op 50263(U) Decided on February 21, 2013 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 21, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Torres, JJ
570788/12.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, - -

against

Vernon Gowdy, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered June 26, 2012, after a jury trial, convicting him of forcible touching and exposure of a person, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered June 26, 2012, affirmed.

Defendant's convictions were supported by legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence. The jury, as properly charged (see CJI 2d [NY] Penal Law § 130.52; People v Bartlett, 89 AD3d 1453 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 881 [2012]), was warranted in finding that the illicit touching shown to have occurred — including defendant's conduct in reaching under the victim's clothing and rubbing his hand "up and down the split of her buttocks" — was "forcible" within the meaning of the forcible touching statute (see Penal Law § 130.52). We find unavailing defendant's contention that his touching of the complainant was somehow less forcible than the "squeezing, grabbing or pinching" listed by way of example as proscribed acts under the statute (see People v Pardew, 20 Misc 3d 129[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51383[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 792 [2008]). Similarly unpersuasive is defendant's challenge to the People's proof bearing on the "public place" element of the exposure of a person offense (see Penal Law § 245.01). The office cubicle in which defendant chose to expose himself was shown to be open and visible to the entrance area of an office to which some 49 Parks Department employees had daily access, and thus was properly found by the jury to constitute a "public place" under Penal Law § 245.01 (see and compare People v McNamara, 78 NY2d 626 [1991][involving parked car]; cf. People v Pangburn, 298 AD2d 989 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 618 [2003][involving private homes]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: February 21, 2013