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.

The People of the State of New York v. Robert Nowakowski

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


February 16, 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
RESPONDENT,
v.
ROBERT NOWAKOWSKI,
APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Eileen Nadelson, J.), rendered September 18, 2008.

People v Nowakowski (Robert)

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 16, 2011

PRESENT: GOLIA, J.P., PESCE and STEINHARDT, JJ

The judgment convicted defendant, after a non-jury trial, of harassment in the second degree.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

After a non-jury trial, defendant was convicted of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]). Defendant's contention that the accusatory instrument was insufficient on its face is without merit (People v Mackey, 49 NY2d 274 [1980]; People v Dasilva, 21 Misc 3d 141[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52374[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]), and we find the record insufficient to permit review of his claim that he was denied his right to a speedy trial (CPL 30.30; see People v Thomas, 46 AD3d 712 [2007]). Defendant's claim that the Criminal Court's 62-day delay in rendering the verdict deprived him of his right to a prompt verdict is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Torrence, 305 AD2d 1042 [2003]; People v Waldron, 162 AD2d 485 [1990]; People v Williams, 24 Misc 3d 131[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51358[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]), as is his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56 [2001]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, we find the evidence legally sufficient to support the conviction. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

We have considered the additional contentions raised by defendant in his pro se brief and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment convicting defendant of harassment in the second degree is affirmed.

Golia, J.P., Pesce and Steinhardt, JJ., concur. Decision

Date:February 16, 2011

20110216

© 1992-2011 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.