| People v Schwartz (Daniel) |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 50911(U) [23 Misc 3d 138(A)] |
| Decided on May 11, 2009 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from judgments of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County
(Suzanne M. Mondo, J.), rendered February 16, 2006. The judgments convicted defendant, upon
jury verdicts, of petit larceny and two counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree, and
of criminal contempt in the second degree, respectively.
Judgments of conviction affirmed.
Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25). Moreover, 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 jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) and two counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.30), and of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50), were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
With regard to defendant's contention concerning the prejudicial effect of the testimony relating to defendant's conduct in April of 2005, assuming arguendo that it was error to admit said evidence, in light of the overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt and the fact that there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant but for said error, the error, if any, was harmless (see People v Cook, 42 NY2d 204 [1977]; People v McMichael, 218 AD2d 671 [1995]).
We find defendant's other contentions raised on appeal to be without merit. Accordingly, [*2]the judgments of conviction are affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 11, 2009