Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered September 19, 2024. The Appellate Division modified, on the law, an order of the Ulster County Court (Bryan E. Rounds, J.), which had, among other things, partially granted defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment. The modification consisted of (1) reversing so much of the order as had dismissed count 1 of the indictment charging defendant with murder in the second degree and reduced counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the indictment from reckless endangerment in the first degree to reckless endangerment in the second degree; (2) denying defendant's motion to that extent; and (3) reinstating such counts. The Appellate Division affirmed the order as modified.

People v Baldner, 230 AD3d 1434, affirmed.

Crimes - Indictment - Sufficiency of Evidence before Grand Jury - Depraved Indifference

The evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient to demonstrate that defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life. That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from the evidence presented to the grand jury is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry where, as here, the grand jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference. Defendant's arguments were essentially challenges to the weight of the evidence, and thus not properly considered on appellate review of a challenge to the legal sufficiency of an indictment. Even considering only the evidence as to which defendant raised no admissibility objections, the evidence presented to the grand jury was sufficient to establish prima facie proof of the crimes charged.

Larkin Ingrassia PLLC, Newburgh (John Ingrassia of counsel), Michael Bongiorno, Bardonia, Anthony L. Ricco, New York City, and O'Connell & Aronowitz, Albany (Stephen Coffey of counsel), for appellant.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Matthew B. Keller, Barbara D. Underwood and Ira M. Feinberg of counsel), for respondent.

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

"In the context of a Grand Jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523, 526 [1998] [citations omitted]). "The reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes . . . ." (Id. [internal quotation marks omitted].) "That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from [the evidence presented to the grand jury] is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry where, as here, the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference" (People v Edwards, 36 NY3d 946, 947 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

The evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient to demonstrate that defendant acted with depraved{**44 NY3d at 1001} indifference to human life (see Penal Law §§ 125.25 [2]; 120.25). "[A] person who is depravedly indifferent is not just willing to take a grossly unreasonable risk to human life—that person does not care how the risk turns out" (People v Maldonado, 24 NY3d 48, 53 [2014], quoting People v Lewie, 17 NY3d 348, 359 [2011]). Defendant's arguments are essentially challenges to the weight of the evidence, and thus not properly considered on appellate review of a challenge to the legal sufficiency of an indictment (see People v Swamp, 84 NY2d 725, 730 [1995] ["The reviewing court must . . . defer( ) all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence"]). Even considering only the evidence as to which defendant raises no admissibility objections, we conclude that the evidence [*2]presented to the grand jury was sufficient to establish prima facie proof of the crimes charged (see People v Avant, 33 NY2d 265, 271 [1973]).

Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.

Order affirmed, in a memorandum.