People v. Belizair

• Decision Date: 27 September 2017
• Docket Number: No. 570429/14.,570429/14.
• Citation: 66 N.Y.S.3d 654 (Table)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jean BELIZAIR, a/k/a Jean Belizaire, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

66 N.Y.S.3d 654 (Table)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Jean BELIZAIR, a/k/a Jean Belizaire, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 570429/14.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, New York.

Sept. 27, 2017.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of conviction (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), rendered April 22, 2014, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of attempted assault in the third degree (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00[1] ) and harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26[1] ) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349 [2007] ). There is no basis upon which to disturb the trial court's determinations concerning credibility. The evidence warranted the conclusion that when defendant punched complainant in the face, head and neck, before throwing the complainant to the ground, kicking his face, head and neck, and stomping his foot, defendant did so with the intent to cause physical injury to the complainant (see Penal Law § 120.00[1] ; Matter of Edward H., 61 A.D.3d 473 [2009] ; Matter of Marcel F., 233 A.D.2d 442, 442–443 [1996] ) and with the intent to harass, annoy and alarm (see Penal Law § 240.26 ; People v. Mack, 76 A.D.3d 467, 468 [2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 922 [2010] ).

We further find that the evidence was legally sufficient to disprove defendant's defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant's credited testimony established that defendant's attack was not preceded by any conduct that would support a reasonable belief that the use of physical force against defendant was imminent (see People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96, 114–115 [1986] ). Credibility determinations of the factfinder are entitled to great deference and should not be disturbed unless manifestly erroneous and so plainly unjustified by the evidence that rejection is required in the interest of justice (see People v. Corporan, 169 A.D.2d 643 [1991], lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 959 [1991] ). Such was not the case herein.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur.