People v. Britt (Spinosar)
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 50950(U) (People v. Britt (Spinosar)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
| People v Britt (Spinosar) |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 50950(U) |
| Decided on June 12, 2025 |
| Appellate Term, First 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 12, 2025
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Brigantti, J.P., James, Perez, JJ.
570023/21
against
Spinosar Britt, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Phyllis Chu, J.), rendered January 8, 2021, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted endangering the welfare of a child, and imposing sentence.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Phyllis Chu, J.), rendered January 8, 2021, affirmed.
The verdict convicting defendant of attempted endangering the welfare of a child (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 260.10 [1]), was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations. The testimony of the eyewitness (Richards) regarding defendant's violent behavior toward his six-year old daughter on a public street, including hitting, lunging at and throwing her to the ground, supports a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80 [2004]). Contrary to defendant's contention, Richards' testimony, which was corroborated, in part, by other evidence, was not incredible as a matter of law, since it was not "manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory" (People v Guzman, 134 AD3d 852, 853 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 998 [2016]). The issues raised by defendant, including inconsistencies in Richards' testimony and whether her view of the incident was obstructed, were properly considered by the trier of fact and there is no basis upon which to disturb its determinations.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 12, 2025
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 50950(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-britt-spinosar-nyappterm-2025.