People v. Schaffino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Schaffino

2017 NY Slip Op 3116, 149 A.D.3d 630, 53 N.Y.S.3d 270

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

DecidedApril 25, 2017

Docket3803 4453/12

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3116 (People v. Schaffino) 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. Schaffino, 2017 NY Slip Op 3116, 149 A.D.3d 630, 53 N.Y.S.3d 270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered November 26, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of 11 counts of attempted disseminating indecent *631 material to minors in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of one to three years, 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]). Initially, we find that there was overwhelming evidence, from multiple sources, establishing defendant’s identity as the person who engaged in sexually-related communications with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl, and defendant’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. Defendant did not preserve his argument that the evidence was insufficient to meet the statutory requirement that he “importune[ ], invite[ ] or induce! ]” a minor to, as pertinent here, engage in sexual acts with him (Penal Law § 235.22 [2]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits, and likewise reject defendant’s weight of the evidence argument on this issue. Defendant expressly and repeatedly asked his intended victim to meet him for sexual contact, and the context clearly shows that defendant was not merely engaging in fantasy, but was trying to lure the victim into meeting with him for sexual activity (see People v Foley, 94 NY2d 668, 681 [2000], cert denied 531 US 875 [2000]). Defendant’s contentions notwithstanding, beyond “importuning, inviting, or inducing,” the statute does not require that the defendant have taken concrete steps to meet the minor. In any event, in Internet and phone communications, defendant repeatedly asked the intended victim about the possibility of arranging a meeting.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered November 26, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of 11 counts of attempted disseminating indecent *631 material to minors in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of one to three years, 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]). Initially, we find that there was overwhelming evidence, from multiple sources, establishing defendant’s identity as the person who engaged in sexually-related communications with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl, and defendant’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. Defendant did not preserve his argument that the evidence was insufficient to meet the statutory requirement that he “importune[ ], invite[ ] or induce! ]” a minor to, as pertinent here, engage in sexual acts with him (Penal Law § 235.22 [2]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits, and likewise reject defendant’s weight of the evidence argument on this issue. Defendant expressly and repeatedly asked his intended victim to meet him for sexual contact, and the context clearly shows that defendant was not merely engaging in fantasy, but was trying to lure the victim into meeting with him for sexual activity (see People v Foley, 94 NY2d 668, 681 [2000], cert denied 531 US 875 [2000]). Defendant’s contentions notwithstanding, beyond “importuning, inviting, or inducing,” the statute does not require that the defendant have taken concrete steps to meet the minor. In any event, in Internet and phone communications, defendant repeatedly asked the intended victim about the possibility of arranging a meeting.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3116, 149 A.D.3d 630, 53 N.Y.S.3d 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-schaffino-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack