People v. Razzaq

• Decision Date: 09 February 2022
• Docket Number: 2017–01265,Docket No. 20062/16
• Citation: 202 A.D.3d 836,158 N.Y.S.3d 857 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Mouhammad RAZZAQ, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

202 A.D.3d 836

158 N.Y.S.3d 857 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Mouhammad RAZZAQ, appellant.

2017–01265

Docket No. 20062/16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—November 5, 2021

February 9, 2022

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Hannah Kon of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Gamaliel Marrero, and Andrew S. Ayala of counsel), for respondent.

HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, WILLIAM G. FORD, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Esther M. Morgenstern, J.), rendered January 4, 2017, convicting him of attempted assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree, harassment in the second degree, attempted criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts), and attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention with respect to the charge of attempted assault in the third degree, the information was not jurisdictionally defective (see People v. Best, 186 A.D.3d 845, 848, 130 N.Y.S.3d 461 ; People v. Isreal, 172 A.D.3d 1406, 1406, 99 N.Y.S.3d 649 ).

The defendant's contention that there was legally insufficient evidence to support the convictions of attempted assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (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, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to support those convictions (see Matter of Monay W., 33 A.D.3d 809, 809–810, 822 N.Y.S.2d 613 ; Matter of Shaheed W., 298 A.D.2d 204, 748 N.Y.S.2d 144 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon our independent review of the record (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those crimes was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

The defendant was provided with the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People...