People v Prefontaine (Richard)

[*1] People v Prefontaine (Richard) 2006 NY Slip Op 50507(U) [11 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on March 14, 2006 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 14, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and LIPPMAN, JJ
2005-304 S CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Richard Prefontaine, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Howard M. Bergson, J.), rendered March 2, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the third degree.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

On this appeal, defendant contends, in part, that the People failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and that the warrantless arrest of defendant in his home was in violation of his constitutional rights.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, a verdict will not be disturbed unless it is perfectly clear that it is against the weight of the evidence (see People v Atlas, 183 App Div 595 [1918], affd 230 NY 629 [1921]; People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]).
Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilty was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). As to defendant's claim that the warrantless arrest in his home was in violation of his constitutional rights, we note that the credible evidence adduced upon the pre-trial hearing established that the officers' entry into the vestibule of the subject two family residence was consensual and that defendant was arrested as he entered the vestibule prior to accessing his apartment. In view of the foregoing, there was no violation of his constitutional rights (see Payton v New York, 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820 [2004]; People v Roe, 73 NY2d 1004 [1989]). The remaining issues raised by defendant were considered and found to be without merit. [*2]

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Lippman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 14, 2006