People v Kruglova (Marina)

[*1] People v Kruglova (Marina) 2019 NY Slip Op 51503(U) Decided on September 20, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 20, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Gonzalez, Edmead, JJ.
570669/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Marina Kruglova, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered September 9, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting her of attempted criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Steven M. Statsinger, J.), rendered September 9, 2016, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of attempted criminal mischief in the fourth degree (see Penal Law §§ 110.00; 145.00[1]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the trial court's determinations concerning credibility. The evidence established that, while defendant was being escorted out of the 111 Centre Street courthouse by several court officers because of her unruly behavior, she kicked a vestibule door "with a lot of force," causing the bottom glass panel to shatter. Defendant's intent to damage the property is fairly inferred from her acts and the surrounding circumstances (see People v Gordon, 23 NY3d 643, 650 [2014]; Matter of Carlos M., 32 AD3d 686, 687 [2006]).

Nor was the accusatory instrument jurisdictionally defective. Giving the allegations "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), and "drawing reasonable inferences from all the facts set forth in the accusatory instrument" (People v Jackson, 18 NY3d 738, 747 [2012]), the accusatory instrument contains sufficient facts to demonstrate "reasonable cause" to believe (CPL 100.40[4][b]) that defendant did not own the door at 111 Centre Street and that she intended to damage it when she "kick[ed]" the door "with her foot."

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 20, 2019