| People v Silva (Christobelle) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 50949(U) [39 Misc 3d 149(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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from judgments of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District
(C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), entered August 10, 2011. The judgments convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of maintaining a finished basement and a basement apartment, respectively, without a certificate of occupancy or a certificate of permitted use.
ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.
Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of maintaining a finished basement and a basement apartment, respectively, without having a certificate of occupancy or a certificate of permitted use (Huntington Town Code § 87-25 [A]). Defendant was sentenced to a $3,500 fine and a conditional discharge on each charge.
Defendant's contention, in effect, that the evidence was insufficient to establish her guilt because the People failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the basement apartment was occupied at the time of the inspection has no merit. Huntington Town Code § 87-25 (A) provides that it "shall be unlawful to maintain, occupy or use a building, structure, land, or any part thereof, for which a certificate of occupancy and/or a certificate of permitted use has not been [*2]issued." The evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in that the People established that the basement of defendant's property was "maintained" as a finished basement and a basement apartment for which no certificate of occupancy and/or certificate of permitted use had been issued.
As the sentences involved herein were within the permissible statutory guidelines, they should not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing that the sentencing court abused its discretion or that extraordinary circumstances exist which require a modification of either of the sentences (see People v Hodges, 13 AD3d 979 [2004]; People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681 [1999]). Inasmuch as defendant has not shown that any extraordinary circumstances exist, or that the sentences were either harsh or excessive, we decline to modify them (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Defendant's remaining contentions either lack merit or are unpreserved for appellate review.
Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.
LaSalle, J.P., Nicolai and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 04, 2013