People v. Pittman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pittman

77 A.D.3d 483, 908 N.Y.S.2d 579

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 14, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 483 (People v. Pittman) 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. Pittman, 77 A.D.3d 483, 908 N.Y.S.2d 579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Darcel D. Clark, J.), rendered November 27, 2007, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him tó a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We further find that it was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. The requisite intent for second-degree harassment may be inferred from defendant’s actions.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unavailing (see People v Correa, 15 NY3d 213 [2010]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Darcel D. Clark, J.), rendered November 27, 2007, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him tó a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We further find that it was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. The requisite intent for second-degree harassment may be inferred from defendant’s actions.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unavailing (see People v Correa, 15 NY3d 213 [2010]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 483, 908 N.Y.S.2d 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pittman-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack