Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Molloy

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


January 6, 2009

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
GREGORY MOLLOY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered December 21, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal contempt in the first degree (three counts) and criminal contempt in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman, JJ.

2789/06

The court properly admitted evidence of prior incidents involving the same victim, since this evidence was probative of the "reasonable fear of physical injury" element of Penal Law § 215.51(b)(vi), as well as to explain the origin of the charges and the relationship between defendant and his victim (see People v Palladino, 47 AD3d 491, 492 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 843 [2008]; People v Garvin, 37 AD3d 372 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 984 [2007]). A sufficient connection between the prior incidents and the victim's reasonable fear could be inferred from the evidence, whose probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Use of the conjunctive "and" in the indictment did not obligate the People to prove more than what was required under the statutes (see People v Charles, 61 NY2d 321, 327-328 [1984]).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Defendant was not so intoxicated as to cast doubt on his ability to form the requisite intent.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20090106

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.