People v King (Randy)

[*1] People v King (Randy) 2010 NY Slip Op 51466(U) [28 Misc 3d 138(A)] Decided on August 13, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 13, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and IANNACCI, JJ
2009-597 S CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Randy King, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Dennis Cohen, J.), rendered February 18, 2009. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant of harassment in the second degree.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was convicted, after a nonjury trial, of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]). While defendant had sought a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People's case, defendant failed to renew the motion after presenting evidence, and therefore waived subsequent review of that determination (see People v Montana, 298 AD2d 934 [2002]). 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 (see Matter of Cukerstein v Wright, 68 AD3d 1367 [2009]; People v Sylla, 7 Misc 3d 8 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]).

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 Lane, 7 NY3d 888 [2006]). The District Court accepted the version of the events proffered by the complainant and his wife, who both testified that defendant had threatened to kill the complainant. Accordingly, the judgment convicting defendant of harassment in the second degree is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 13, 2010