People v Simpson (Frederick)

[*1] People v Simpson (Frederick) 2016 NY Slip Op 51635(U) Decided on November 14, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 14, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Gonzalez, JJ.
570878/15

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Frederick Simpson, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), rendered September 8, 2015, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of public consumption of alcohol in violation of Administrative Code of City of NY §10-125(b), and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (John Cataldo, J.H.O.) rendered September 8, 2015, affirmed.

Defendant's present challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of public consumption of alcohol (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-125) is unpreserved for appellate review, inasmuch as he failed to move for a trial order of dismissal based on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject defendant's sufficiency claim on the merits. The credited police testimony established that defendant was observed inside a motor vehicle, which was stopped at the corner of West 145th Street and Lenox Avenue, with an open can of Budweiser beer. The interior of any stationary motor vehicle on the street constitutes a "public place" as that term is defined in the Code provision at issue (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-125[a][2]). Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]).

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments, including his challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 14, 2016