People v Curko (Sam)

[*1] People v Curko (Sam) 2012 NY Slip Op 50444(U) Decided on March 8, 2012 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 8, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., MOLIA and IANNACCI, JJ
2010-3299 S CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Sam D. Curko, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Shelter Island, Suffolk County (Patricia Quigley, J.), rendered October 4, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of harassment in the second degree.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged with harassment in the second degree (Penal Law
§ 240.26 [3]) as the result of a confrontation with the complainant that occurred outside of the Justice Court building after the complainant had testified against defendant in an unrelated civil proceeding. After a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of the charged offense. On appeal, defendant contends, among other things, that the People failed to present legally sufficient proof of his guilt.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]) and "indulging in all reasonable inferences in the[ir] . . . favor" (People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 437 [1985]), we find that the trial proof was legally sufficient to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The People proffered evidence that defendant had repeatedly threatened and shouted expletives at the complainant as he walked past the complainant to his own vehicle. Such conduct amounts to "a course of conduct" or "repeatedly commit[ted] acts" sufficient to [*2]support defendant's conviction of harassment in the second degree under Penal Law § 240.26 (3) (see People v Tralli, 88 Misc 2d 117 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 1976]). Defendant's remaining contention lacks merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., Molia and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 08, 2012