People v Pape (Christopher)

[*1] People v Pape (Christopher) 2012 NY Slip Op 50696(U) Decided on April 13, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 13, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., NICOLAI and MOLIA, JJ
2011-1740 S CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Christopher Pape, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Riverhead, Suffolk County (Richard A. Ehlers, J.), rendered May 2, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of trespass.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the facts, the accusatory instrument is dismissed and the fine, if paid, is remitted.

Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of trespass (Penal Law
§ 140.05). The evidence presented at trial as to the precise location of the complainant's property boundary was unclear, and to the extent that defendant may have walked across the complainant's property to enter the passenger-side door of the vehicle in which he had arrived, he was complying with the owner's request to leave the premises.

Consequently, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we find that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. We have weighed "the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" (People v Zephyrin, 52 AD3d 543, 543 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]) and "determine firstly, that an acquittal . . . would not have been unreasonable based upon the evidence presented, and secondly, that the trial court failed to accord the evidence the weight it should have been accorded" (id.; see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.

Iannacci, J.P., Nicolai and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 13, 2012