SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
November 3, 2010
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Middletown, Orange County (Michael Schwartz, J.), rendered April 8, 2009. The judgment, after a non-jury trial, convicted defendant of assault in the third degree.
People v. Daughton (Kathleen)
Decided on November 3, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant was convicted, after a non-jury trial, of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 ). While defendant contends on appeal that the People failed to establish the intent element of this offense, defense counsel never made any specific objection at trial regarding the People's alleged failure to prove this element. Thus, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 ; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 ). 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 ), was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of assault in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 ; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 ), we accord great deference to the factfinder'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 ). Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 ). The City Court accepted the version of the events proffered by the complainant and several witnesses. Indeed, defendant does not offer an alternate version of events, but argues only that the People failed to prove that she had the requisite intent to injure the complainant. In our view, it may be inferred from the testimony that defendant had the requisite intent. Accordingly, the judgment convicting defendant of assault in the third degree is affirmed.
Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur. Decision Date: November 03, 2010
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.