People v. Chambers

• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 50509 (U)
• Decision Date: 22 June 2022
• Docket Number: 2022-50509
• Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Chambers, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New York)

2022 NY Slip Op 50509(U)

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Chambers, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2022-50509

Supreme Court of New York, First Department

June 22, 2022

Unpublished Opinion

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), rendered September 26, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted petit larceny and harassment in the second degree and imposing sentence.

PRESENT: Hagler, J.P., Tisch, Michael, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of conviction (Felicia A. Mennin, J.), rendered September 26 2016, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of attempted petit larceny (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 155.25) and second-degree harassment (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 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility. The evidence warranted the conclusion that when defendant yelled and cursed at the victim (his wife), calling her his "bitch" and stating that he "owned her" before "grabb[ing]" her neck, he did so with the intent to harass, annoy and alarm (see People v Mack, 76 A.D.3d 467, 468 [2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 922 [2010]). With respect to the petit larceny conviction, the evidence showed that when defendant snatched the victim's cell phone from her hand, refused to return it and subsequently lied to a police officer about having the phone, he intended to "deprive" or "appropriate" by taking "control over the property" (People v Jensen, 86 N.Y.2d 248, 252 [1995]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request for a missing witness charge for two uncalled witnesses, the son of both the victim and defendant (Sage) and a co-tenant (Libby), both of whom were present in the apartment during the incident. There is no indication that Sage was under the People's control for purposes of a missing witness charge (see People v Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 428-429 [1986]; People v Broadhead, 36 A.D.3d 423, 424 [2007], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 919 [2007]; People v McLean, 17 A.D.3d 1150, 1150-1151 [2005], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 791 [2005]). Indeed since Sage "was a close relative of defendant as well as of the victim, and since he refused to cooperate with the prosecutor, there was no reason to presume that his testimony would be favorable to the People" (People v Mariano, 36 A.D.3d 504, 505 [2007], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 987 [2007]). With respect to Libby, defendant's contentions that she was under the control of the People because of her landlord-tenant relationship with the victim and that she would be expected to testify favorably to the prosecution are unpreserved (see People v Blackledge, 129 A.D.3d 412 [2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 926 [2015]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. To the extent that the...