People v. Harris

• Decision Date: 30 April 2010
• Citation: 899 N.Y.S.2d 519,72 A.D.3d 1492
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Antwoin HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

899 N.Y.S.2d 519 72 A.D.3d 1492 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Antwoin HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.) Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York. April 30, 2010.

The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Susan C. Ministero of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant.

Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michelle L. Cianciosa of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from three judgments convicting him following a single nonjury trial of three counts of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50[3] ) arising from his three violations of an order of protection. We reject the contention of defendant that the evidence at trial is legally insufficient to establish that he intended to violate the order of protection. A copy of the no-contact order of protection, which was issued to defendant in court and signed by him, was admitted in evidence at trial, and the victim testified that defendant made threats to her on each of the three occasions that he contacted her in violation of the order of protection. Viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we conclude that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferencesthat could lead a rational person to conclude that defendant knew of the existence of the order of protection and intentionally violated it ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672; People v. Wright, 63 A.D.3d 1700, 1702, 882 N.Y.S.2d 605). Also contrary to defendant's contention, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trial ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Although defendant denied the victim's allegations during his trial testimony, Supreme Court was entitled to credit the testimony of the victim over that of defendant ( see People v. Lane, 7 N.Y.3d 888, 890, 826 N.Y.S.2d 599, 860 N.E.2d 61; People v. Ange, 37 A.D.3d 1143, 1144, 829 N.Y.S.2d 378, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 839, 840 N.Y.S.2d 766, 872 N.E.2d 879). "[T]hose who see and hear the witnesses can assess their credibility and reliability in a manner that is far superior to that of reviewing judges who must rely on the printed record" ( Lane, 7 N.Y.3d at 890, 826 N.Y.S.2d 599, 860 N.E.2d 61), and it cannot be said that the court failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded ( see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

We reject the further contention of defendant that the misdemeanorinformations upon which he was prosecuted were jurisdictionally defective because they did not contain nonhearsay allegations that, if true, established his knowledge of the order of protection. A copy of the order of protection bearing defendant's signature was attached to the informations in appeal Nos. 1 and 2, and it is well settled that "a defendant's name on the signature line of an order of protection adequately supports an allegation that the defendant knew of the order's contents" ( People v. Inserra, 4 N.Y.3d 30, 32, 790 N.Y.S.2d 72, 823 N.E.2d 437). Contrary to defendant's contention, the fact that the attached copies of the order of protection were not certified does not render the informations jurisdictionally defective ( see generally People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 362-363, 717 N.Y.S.2d 88, 740 N.E.2d 233). Although a copy of the order of protection was not attached to the information in appeal No. 3, we nevertheless reject defendant's contention that the information was jurisdictionally defective ( see id. at 359-360, 717...