People v. Mears
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 00881 (People v. Mears) 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.
Opinion
| People v Mears |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 00881 |
| Decided on February 13, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Second 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 on February 13, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
LILLIAN WAN
LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.
2024-00734
(Ind. No. 73771/22)
v
Stephen Mears, appellant.
Matthew W. Brissenden, P.C., Garden City, NY, for appellant.
Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Shiry Gaash and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Timothy P. Mazzei, J.), rendered January 10, 2024, convicting him of endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
For his actions during a physical altercation between himself and the child of his former girlfriend, the defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child.
The trial court properly declined to charge the jury with the defense of justification for the crime of endangering the welfare of a child, the intent of which "is to protect the physical health, morals and well-being of children" (People v Bergerson, 17 NY2d 398, 401), and to which the defense of justification generally does not apply (see People v Williams, 102 AD3d 566, 567; People v Varela, 164 AD2d 924, 924; People v Fields, 134 AD2d 365, 365-366). Moreover, there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, that supported a justification defense (see People v Williams, 102 AD3d at 567).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.
IANNACCI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and LOVE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
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 00881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mears-nyappdiv-2025.