People v Konrad (Kai-Uwe)

[*1] People v Konrad (Kai-Uwe) 2006 NY Slip Op 52037(U) [13 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on October 6, 2006 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 6, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and LIPPMAN, JJ
2005-896 N CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Kai-Uwe Konrad, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Denise L. Sher, J.), rendered May 13, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of endangering the welfare of a child.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant contends that the court committed reversible error because of its failure to respond meaningfully to a note from the jury. The issue has not been preserved for appellate review since defendant failed to raise an objection until after the verdict was read and the jury was excused (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Burgos, 248 AD2d 547 [1998]; People v Shaw, 158 AD2d 923 [1990]). In any event, reversal would not be warranted since the failure to respond to the jury's note did not result in serious prejudice to defendant's rights (People v Lourido, 70 NY2d 428, 435 [1987]; People v Jackson, 20 NY2d 440, 445 [1967]).

Defendant's remaining contention, that the verdict was repugnant, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985 [1985]; People v Jackson, 19 AD3d 614, 615 [2005]). In any event, the elements of assault in the third degree, attempted assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree as charged are completely different from the elements of endangering the welfare of a child as charged. Therefore, the verdicts acquitting defendant of all charges other than endangering the welfare of a child did not negate an essential element of the latter charge (see People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 7 [1981]).

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Lippman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 6, 2006