People v Chifrine (Irina)

[*1] People v Chifrine (Irina) 2012 NY Slip Op 51437(U) Decided on July 17, 2012 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 17, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2010-3038 K CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Irina Chifrine, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), rendered November 4, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the facts, and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.

In this prosecution for attempted criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 215.50 [3]), defendant was convicted, after a nonjury trial, of violating an order of protection which, among other things, directed her to stay away from her daughter and grandson.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we find that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. We have weighed "the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" (People v Zephyrin, 52 AD3d 543, 543 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]) and "determine firstly, that an acquittal . . . would not have been unreasonable based upon the evidence presented, and secondly, that the trial court failed to accord the evidence the weight it should have been accorded" (id.; see also People v Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348). In our view, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that defendant did not intentionally attempt to violate the order of [*2]protection.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 17, 2012