People v Glover (2013 NY Slip Op 52059(U))

People v Glover (Kalomo)

2013 NY Slip Op 52059(U) [41 Misc 3d 143(A)]

Decided on December 9, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

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

against

Kalomo Glover, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Miriam Cyrulnik, J., at trial; Robert D. Kalish, J., at sentence), rendered February 14, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree.

Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 215.50 [3]).

Defendant contends that the Criminal Court erred in denying his motion, made at the close of the People's case, to dismiss the information or, in the alternative, to conduct a hearing to determine whether the complainant had read the complaint or had been aware of its contents before signing the supporting deposition. However, the fact that the complainant testified at the trial that she did not recall reading or seeing the complaint, and did not remember signing the supporting deposition, did not require the dismissal of the information or a hearing on the ground that the information was based on latent hearsay. As informations are reviewed for facial sufficiency solely within their four corners, and hearsay defects therein are nonjurisdictional and waived if not raised in a pretrial motion (People v Pittman, 100 NY2d 114, 121 [2003]), the [*2]Criminal Court did not err in denying defendant's motion made at trial to dismiss the information (see People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 366 [2000]; Matter of Edward B., 80 NY2d 458, 463-465 [1992]; People v Antonovsky, ___ Misc 3d ____, 2013 NY Slip Op 23303 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).

Defendant's contention that he may not have violated the order of protection in question constitutes a legal sufficiency claim, which is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]), we accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact, based upon its superior vantage point, to view the witnesses, observe their demeanor, hear the testimony, and assess their credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon our review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdict convicting defendant of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348; People v Romero, 7 NY3d at 643-646).