People of the State of New York v Monroe

[*1] People of the State of New York v Monroe 2019 NY Slip Op 51528(U) Decided on September 27, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 27, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Gonzalez, Edmead, JJ.
570707/16

The People of the State of New York, -

against

Abigail Monroe, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Laurence E. Busching, J.), rendered September 9, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting her of attempted assault in the third degree, attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, harassment in the second degree and menacing in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Laurence E. Busching, J.), rendered September 9, 2016, affirmed.

The verdict rejecting defendant's justification defense 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 credited testimony established that defendant's attack, in which she stabbed complainant in the chest with a kitchen knife during a domestic argument, was not preceded by any conduct by the complainant — verbal or physical — 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]). The victim's credited account of the incident was neither unreliable nor implausible and there was no reasonable view of the evidence upon which the factfinder could properly conclude that defendant's conduct was justified (see People v Petty, 7 NY3d 277, 284 [2006]). The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's CPL 170.40 motion to dismiss the charges in furtherance of justice. After considering the statutory factors in totality, we find no "compelling factor" (CPL 170.40[1]) that would warrant that "extraordinary remedy" (People v Moye, 302 AD2d 610, 611, [2003]; see People v Williams, 145 AD3d 100, 107-108 [2016]), which should be exercised "sparingly" (People v Keith R., 95 AD3d 65, 67 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 963 [2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 27, 2019