People v Angeles (Claudio)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Angeles (Claudio) 2016 NY Slip Op 51549(U) Decided on October 25, 2016 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 25, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570295/14

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Claudio Angeles, 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 February 28, 2014, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of two counts of attempted assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered February 28, 2014, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of two counts of attempted assault in the third degree (see Penal Law §§ 110.00/120.00[1]) was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility. Defendant's intent to physically injure the complainant could be readily inferred from the totality of his violent conduct (see Matter of Eugene D., 126 AD3d 529, 529 [2015]). In the first incident, defendant slapped complainant's face, grabbed her by the hair, pinned her on a bed with his body on top of her; and in the second incident, defendant grabbed complainant by her arms, pushed her backwards causing her head to hit a wall and slapped both sides of her face (see Matter of Shaheed W., 298 AD2d 204 [2002]; Matter of Marcel F., 233 AD2d 442 [1996]; People v Jackson, 18 Misc 3d 134[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50169[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 841 [2008]).


THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 25, 2016

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.