[*1]
People v Salten (Howard)
2013 NY Slip Op 50940(U) [39 Misc 3d 148(A)]
Decided on June 4, 2013
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 4, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : LaSALLE, J.P., NICOLAI and IANNACCI, JJ
2010-2635 S CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, —

against

Howard Salten, Appellant.


Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Town of Southampton, Suffolk County (Andrea H. Schiavoni, J.), rendered October 7, 2010. The judgments convicted defendant, upon jury verdicts, of reckless endangerment in the second degree, obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and illegal beach driving, respectively, and sentenced defendant to, among other things, a term of six months' incarceration on the conviction for reckless endangerment in the second degree and a term of six months' incarceration on the conviction for obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, the terms to run concurrently.


ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.20), obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05), and illegal beach driving (Southampton Town Code § 11-32). As relevant to this appeal, defendant was sentenced to a term of six months' incarceration on the conviction for reckless endangerment in the second degree and a term of six months' incarceration on the conviction for obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, the terms to run concurrently. [*2]

Contrary to defendant's contention, we find that, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), the evidence with respect to defendant's conviction of reckless endangerment in the second degree was legally sufficient to support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, defendant's sentences were neither harsh nor excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

LaSalle, J.P., Nicolai and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 04, 2013