People v Faria (David)

[*1] People v Faria (David) 2018 NY Slip Op 50988(U) Decided on June 21, 2018 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 21, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : JAMES V. BRANDS, J.P., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, JJ
2015-2301 D CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

David Faria, Appellant.

Dutchess County Public Defender (William Ghee of counsel), for appellant. Dutchess County District Attorney (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Town of Beekman, Dutchess County (John C. Garito, J.,), rendered July 9, 2015. The judgments convicted defendant, upon jury verdicts, of reckless endangerment in the second degree and criminal contempt in the second degree and imposed sentence.

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Defendant was charged in an accusatory instrument with reckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.20) and criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50 [3]). At a jury trial, the complaining witness testified that he had encountered defendant while driving on a winding road. Defendant, who was traveling in the opposite direction, swerved into the complaining witness's lane so that defendant was coming straight at the complaining witness and only moved away at the last minute, just avoiding a collision. The People also demonstrated that the complaining witness had an order of protection against defendant which specifically prohibited defendant from engaging in certain behaviors, including "reckless endangerment," against the complaining witness. Following the trial, defendant was convicted as charged.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the proof was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a [*2]reasonable doubt, defendant's guilt of the charged offenses. 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 nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the jury's credibility determinations and, as a result, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

BRANDS, J.P., TOLBERT and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 21, 2018