People v Silva (Christobelle)

[*1] People v Silva (Christobelle) 2013 NY Slip Op 50949(U) Decided on June 4, 2013 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 4, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : LaSALLE, J.P., NICOLAI and IANNACCI, JJ
2011-3113 S CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Christobelle Silva, Appellant.

Appeal from judgments of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District

(C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), entered August 10, 2011. The judgments convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of maintaining a finished basement and a basement apartment, respectively, without a certificate of occupancy or a certificate of permitted use.

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of maintaining a finished basement and a basement apartment, respectively, without having a certificate of occupancy or a certificate of permitted use (Huntington Town Code § 87-25 [A]). Defendant was sentenced to a $3,500 fine and a conditional discharge on each charge.

Defendant's contention, in effect, that the evidence was insufficient to establish her guilt because the People failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the basement apartment was occupied at the time of the inspection has no merit. Huntington Town Code § 87-25 (A) provides that it "shall be unlawful to maintain, occupy or use a building, structure, land, or any part thereof, for which a certificate of occupancy and/or a certificate of permitted use has not been [*2]issued." The evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in that the People established that the basement of defendant's property was "maintained" as a finished basement and a basement apartment for which no certificate of occupancy and/or certificate of permitted use had been issued.

As the sentences involved herein were within the permissible statutory guidelines, they should not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing that the sentencing court abused its discretion or that extraordinary circumstances exist which require a modification of either of the sentences (see People v Hodges, 13 AD3d 979 [2004]; People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681 [1999]). Inasmuch as defendant has not shown that any extraordinary circumstances exist, or that the sentences were either harsh or excessive, we decline to modify them (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Defendant's remaining contentions either lack merit or are unpreserved for appellate review.

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

LaSalle, J.P., Nicolai and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 04, 2013