People v. Chatwin

222 A.D.3d 463, 201 N.Y.S.3d 378, 2023 NY Slip Op 06336
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 12, 2023
DocketInd. No. 382/18 382/18 Appeal No. 1179 Case No. 2019-1503
StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.3d 463 (People v. Chatwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Chatwin, 222 A.D.3d 463, 201 N.Y.S.3d 378, 2023 NY Slip Op 06336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

People v Chatwin (2023 NY Slip Op 06336)
People v Chatwin
2023 NY Slip Op 06336
Decided on December 12, 2023
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: December 12, 2023
Before: Kern, J.P., Singh, Kennedy, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ.

Ind. No. 382/18 382/18 Appeal No. 1179 Case No. 2019-1503

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Adam Chatwin, Defendant-Appellant.


Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Paris C. DeYoung of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jaime Masten of counsel), for respondent.



Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Erika Edwards, J.), rendered November 29, 2018, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of unlawful surveillance in the second degree and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence adduced at trial supports the conclusion that defendant, while masking his conduct as typical phone use, surreptitiously recorded the naked complainant with his phone after a sexual encounter. Defendant's surreptitious intent is further corroborated by the emails he subsequently exchanged with the complainant, in which he attempted to use the video to extort money from the complainant (see People v Schreier, 22 NY3d 494, 498 [2014]; People v Fraser, 159 AD3d 447 [1st Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1081 [2018]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: December 12, 2023



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Danielson
880 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Schreier
5 N.E.3d 985 (New York Court of Appeals, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.3d 463, 201 N.Y.S.3d 378, 2023 NY Slip Op 06336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chatwin-nyappdiv-2023.