People v. Garnett

• Decision Date: 21 January 1997
• Citation: 652 N.Y.S.2d 1001,235 A.D.2d 492
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. James GARNETT, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 1001

652 N.Y.S.2d 1001

235 A.D.2d 492

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. James GARNETT, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Jan. 21, 1997.

Thomas Andrew O'Keefe, Peekskill, for appellant.

Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney, White Plains (Mark C.M. Fang and Richard E. Weill, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), rendered January 13, 1995, convicting him of obstructing governmental administration, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contentions that the People did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient evidence and that his conviction should be reversed because the police lacked probable cause to arrest his codefendant and because of a delay in turning over the police officers' notes (see, CPL 470.05[2] ).

In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant's acts constituted a knowing, physical interference with, and disruption of, the official function being performed by the officers (see, Matter of Samuel VV., 217 A.D.2d 863, 629 N.Y.S.2d 843; Matter of Carlos G., 215 A.D.2d 165, 626 N.Y.S.2d 137; People v. Tarver, 188 A.D.2d 938, 591 N.Y.S.2d 907; see also, People v. Case, 42 N.Y.2d 98, 102, 396 N.Y.S.2d 841, 365 N.E.2d 872). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15[5] ).

In addition, the police had probable cause to arrest the codefendant (see, People v. Todaro, 26 N.Y.2d 325, 329, 310 N.Y.S.2d 303, 258 N.E.2d 711; Matter of Leonard D., 185 A.D.2d 315, 316, 587 N.Y.S.2d 216; People v. Brown, 116 A.D.2d 727, 728-729, 497 N.Y.S.2d 934). Finally, the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice resulting from the People's delay in furnishing the police officers' notes (see, People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937, 940, 528 N.Y.S.2d 813, 524 N.E.2d 134; People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56, 63, 511 N.Y.S.2d 580, 503 N.E.2d 1011; People v. Leon, 186 A.D.2d 587, 588 N.Y.S.2d 384).

MILLER, J.P., and SANTUCCI, JOY and KRAUSMAN, JJ., concur.