People v Green (Brady)

[*1] People v Green (Brady) 2013 NY Slip Op 51863(U) Decided on November 14, 2013 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570511/09.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, - -

against

Brady Green, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered January 18, 2009, convicting him of stalking in the fourth degree, attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree, criminal trespass in the third degree, and harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (James M. Burke, J.), rendered June 18, 2009, affirmed.

Since defendant made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal, and since the court did not make any ruling that addressed the specific arguments defendant makes for the first time on appeal, defendant's legal sufficiency claims are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject them on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The court, as factfinder, was warranted in concluding that defendant's course of conduct aimed at the female complainant lacked a "legitimate purpose" and was likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to her health or safety (see Penal Law § 120.45; People v Stuart, 100 NY2d 412 [2003]), and that defendant's telephone call to the male complainant, threatening to "come and kill" him by "slit[ting] his throat," placed the male complainant in reasonable fear for his safety (see Penal Law § 240.30[1]); People v Thomas, 58 AD3d 445, 446 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 788 [2009]).

Defendant's present challenges to the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument are similarly lacking in merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: November 14, 2013