People v. Legagneux

• Decision Date: 19 July 1999
• Citation: 691 N.Y.S.2d 922
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christopher LEGAGNEUX, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 922

691 N.Y.S.2d 922

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christopher LEGAGNEUX, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department, New York.

July 19, 1999.

Gary E. Eisenberg, Monroe, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Kevin L. Wright, District Attorney, Carmel, N.Y. (Mary Jane MacCrae of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Braatz, J.), rendered May 15, 1996, convicting him of driving while intoxicated, reckless endangerment in the second degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Having failed to raise a relevant objection at trial, the defendant has not preserved for appellate review the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction for driving while intoxicated (see, CPL 470.05 ; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9). In any event, viewing the evidence in a 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 (see, People v. Kane, 240 A.D.2d 516, 658 N.Y.S.2d 434; People v. Cooper, 219 A.D.2d 426, 643 N.Y.S.2d 532, affd. 90 N.Y.2d 292, 660 N.Y.S.2d 546, 683 N.E.2d 11; People v. Whelan, 165 A.D.2d 313, 567 N.Y.S.2d 817). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the jury's verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 ).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.

S. MILLER, J.P., SANTUCCI, KRAUSMAN, and FLORIO, JJ., concur.