People v Laurent (Philip)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Laurent (Philip) 2019 NY Slip Op 50391(U) Decided on March 22, 2019 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 22, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Ling-Cohan, Edmead, JJ.
570023/14

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Philip Jean Laurent, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Kevin B. McGrath, J.), rendered August 14, 2013, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of two counts of harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Kevin B. McGrath, J.), rendered August 14, 2013, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of two counts of second-degree harassment (see Penal Law § 240.26[1]) was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility. Defendant's intent to harass, annoy or alarm complainant may be inferred from his conduct in the two domestic disputes at issue (see People v Mack, 76 AD3d 467 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 922 [2010]). In the first incident, defendant became angry at and hit complainant, his live-in companion, grabbed her neck and smacked her cheek so hard that her dentures flew out of her mouth; in the second incident, defendant got on top of complainant as she lay in bed, stated "no other bitch" was going to send him to jail, and started punching and hitting complainant, and grabbing her throat. The fact that the court acquitted defendant on other charges does not require a different conclusion (see People v Gutierrez, 91 AD3d 491 [2012]).


THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur

Decision Date: March 22, 2019



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.