People v Donnegan (Mayra)

[*1] People v Donnegan (Mayra) 2010 NY Slip Op 51069(U) [27 Misc 3d 143(A)] Decided on June 14, 2010 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 14, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
2008-1653 OR CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Mayra Donnegan, Appellant.

Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Town of Newburgh, Orange County (Richard Clarino, J.), rendered July 22, 2008. The judgments, upon jury verdicts, convicted defendant of harassment in the second degree and resisting arrest.

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]) and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). Defendant's argument regarding the jury charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Richardson, 15 Misc 3d 138[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50934[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Furthermore, because defense counsel never made any specific objection at trial regarding the People's failure to prove the intent element of harassment, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review as well (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, we are of the opinion that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of harassment in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we accord great deference to the fact-finder's opportunity at the trial to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor and assess their credibility (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]). The jury accepted the version of the events proffered by the complainant and the arresting officer, who both testified that defendant pushed the complainant, and from their testimony it may be inferred that defendant had the requisite intent (see People v Alexander, 50 AD3d 816 [2008]). Accordingly, the judgment convicting defendant of harassment in the second degree is affirmed.

In light of the foregoing, and contrary to defendant's contention on appeal, we find that [*2]the arrest for harassment in the second degree was "authorized" (see CPL 140.10 [1], [2]). Accordingly, the judgment convicting defendant of resisting arrest is also affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 14, 2010