People v Belizair (Jean)

[*1] People v Belizair (Jean) 2017 NY Slip Op 51265(U) Decided on September 27, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 27, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Ling-Cohan, Gonzalez, JJ.
570429/14

The People of the State of New York,

against

Jean Belizair, a/k/a Jean Belizaire, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), rendered April 22, 2014, convicting him, after a nonjury trial, of attempted assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), rendered April 22, 2014, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of attempted assault in the third degree (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00[1]) and harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26[1]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis upon which to disturb the trial court's determinations concerning credibility. The evidence warranted the conclusion that when defendant punched complainant in the face, head and neck, before throwing the complainant to the ground, kicking his face, head and neck, and stomping his foot, defendant did so with the intent to cause physical injury to the complainant (see Penal Law § 120.00[1]; Matter of Edward H., 61 AD3d 473 [2009]; Matter of Marcel F., 233 AD2d 442, 442-443 [1996]) and with the intent to harass, annoy and alarm (see Penal Law § 240.26; People v Mack, 76 AD3d 467, 468 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 922 [2010]).

We further find that the evidence was legally sufficient to disprove defendant's defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant's credited testimony established that defendant's attack was not preceded by any conduct that would support a reasonable belief that the use of physical force against defendant was imminent (see People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96, 114-115 [1986]). Credibility determinations of the factfinder are entitled to great deference and should not be disturbed unless manifestly erroneous and so plainly unjustified by the evidence that rejection is required in the interest of justice (see People v Corporan, 169 AD2d 643 [1991], lv denied 77 NY2d 959 [1991]). Such was not the case herein.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 27, 2017