People v. Utak (N'Tia)

• Court: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
• Decided: January 10, 2019
• Docket: 2019 NYSlipOp 50061(U)
• Status: Published

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

N'Tia Utak, Appellant.

John P. Savoca, for appellant. Westchester County District Attorney (Brian R. Pouliot and William C. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County (Nicolas C. Maselli, Jr., J.), rendered October 6, 2016. The judgments convicted defendant, upon jury verdicts, of assault in the third degree, criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, and endangering the welfare of a child, respectively, and imposed sentences.

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]), criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation (Penal Law § 121.11), and endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]).

To the extent that defendant now contends that the evidence of guilt was legally insufficient, we find that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of assault in the third degree, criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, and endangering the welfare of a child (see People v Cepero, 164 AD3d 1465, 1466 [2018]; People v Van Praag, 153 AD3d 559, 560 [2017]; People v Virapen, 147 AD3d [*2]981, 982 [2017]; People v Tumminello, 53 Misc 3d 34 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]), while according great deference to the trier of fact's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor, and assess their credibility (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find that the verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

RUDERMAN, J.P., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: January 10, 2019