People v Henry (Ricarda)

[*1] People v Henry (Ricarda) 2004 NY Slip Op 51674(U) Decided on December 21, 2004 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 21, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.
2003-1721 Q CR,

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

RICARDA HENRY, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Criminal Court, Queens County (S. Paynter, J.), rendered on October 27, 2003, after a non-jury trial, convicting him of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]) and imposing sentence.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's sole contention upon this appeal is that the weight of the evidence presented at trial is not sufficient to support his conviction because, in defendant's view, the evidence presented was incredible. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), the verdict against [*2]
defendant was supported by legally sufficient evidence (see e.g. People v Carthrens, 171 AD2d 387, 392 [1991]) and was not against the weight of the evidence (id.; see also CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]; People v Kim, 1 Misc 3d 127[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51536[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). The complainant testified that defendant, seemingly without provocation, beat him with a piece of wood, causing injuries. This testimony was not manifestly untrue, impossible, contrary to experience or so self-contradictory that it must be disregarded (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). While there were inconsistencies within and between both versions of the events of August 13, 2002, these were relatively minor and best resolved through the factfinder's evaluation of the witnesses' credibility, which is to be given great deference, as the trier of fact saw and heard the witnesses and was in a position to assess their demeanor (see People v Cummings, 291 AD2d 454 [2002]; People v Hernandez, 288 AD2d 489 [2001]). In any event, the complainant's account of the incident - that defendant came at him with a piece of wood, that complainant raised his hands to protect his face and that defendant struck him, injuring both his hand and his face - is consistent with the injuries testified to and their treatment, which
included removal of splinters of wood from the wounds, and the court, as trier of fact, was entitled to accord to that account the weight that it did (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).
Decision Date: December 21, 2004