People v. Ramirez

2019 NY Slip Op 3996
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Ramirez. Read the opinion of the Court — 146 A.D.3d 987
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 22, 2019·No. Ind. No. 16-06267·Published

Opinion

People v Ramirez (2019 NY Slip Op 03996)
People v Ramirez
2019 NY Slip Op 03996
Decided on May 22, 2019
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 May 22, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
ROBERT J. MILLER
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2018-01273
(Ind. No. 16-06267)

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

v

Ricardo Ramirez, appellant.


John P. Savoca, Yorktown Heights, NY, for appellant.

Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (William C. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Susan Capeci, J.), rendered December 19, 2017, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and harassment in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).

We agree with the County Court's determination to permit the People to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior bad acts against the complainant. This evidence was relevant background material regarding the defendant's relationship with the complainant, to explain the issuance of a temporary order of protection, and as evidence of the defendant's motive and intent in the commission of the charged crimes (see People v Bittrolff, 165 AD3d 690, 691; People v Reddick, 104 AD3d 708, 708; People v Whitley, 83 AD3d 1107, 1108; People v Hanson, 30 AD3d 537, 538).

MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, MILLER and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

People v. Ramirez, 2019 NY Slip Op 3996 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

2019 NY Slip Op 3996 (People v. Ramirez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Danielson
880 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Romero
859 N.E.2d 902 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Hanson
30 A.D.3d 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Whitley
83 A.D.3d 1107 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Reddick
104 A.D.3d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)