Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of South Nyack, Rockland County (Lee A. Hoffman, J.), rendered September 10, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the second degree and resisting arrest.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree, for violating an order of protection, and resisting arrest. At trial, defendant testified that he had no knowledge of the contents of the order since he did not read the order and did not pay attention when the order was discussed in court. Defendant admitted to receiving a copy of said order on March 19, 2000, and a copy of an amended order on March 20, 2000. The detective who handed defendant a copy of the order on March 19th, and who happened to be in court on another matter on March 20th and saw defendant receive a copy of the amended order, observed defendant sitting in a car with the complainant later in the day on March 20th in violation of the order. When the detective attempted to place defendant under arrest, defendant kicked and flailed his arms and legs in an attempt to prevent handcuffs from being placed on him.

On appeal, defendant contends that the accusatory instrument is facially insufficient, and is jurisdictionally defective in that, inter alia, the factual portion relating to the criminal contempt charge does not make out every element of the offense charged, and the factual portion relating to the resisting arrest charge contains hearsay allegations. Upon a review of said instrument, we find that it "substantially conforms" to the requirements of CPL100.15, the allegations of the instrument's factual part, along with the supporting documentation, provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed criminal contempt in the second degree and resisting arrest, and the nonhearsay allegations of the instrument's factual part establish, if true, every element of [*2]criminal contempt in the second degree and defendant's commission thereof (CPL 100.40 [1]). Defendant's contentions regarding the hearsay allegations of fact supporting the resisting arrest charge are raised for the first time on appeal and, thus, are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354 [2000]), and his remaining contentions regarding the accusatory instrument lack merit.

Defendant also contends on appeal that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence since he did not intentionally violate the order of protection in that he did not read the order and, therefore, was unaware of what the order directed him not to do. We find, however, that defendant's presence in court, and his initials acknowledging receipt of the order, warrant the conclusion that defendant personally received the order and is deemed to have knowledge of its contents (see People v D'Angelo, 284 AD2d 146 [2001], affd 98 NY2d 733 [2002]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant's guilt of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50 [3]) and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). Defendant's remaining contentions lack merit.

Rudolph, P.J., Angiolillo and McCabe, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 18, 2006