Second, Eleventh and Thirteenth JudicIal DistrictsCases Released on: June 25, 2019
By: Pesce, P.J., Weston, Siegal, JJ.Appellate Advocates (Kathleen Whooley of counsel), for appellant.Kings County District Attorney (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Ross of counsel), for respondent2015-954 K CR. PEOPLE v. SHEVACH, AURAHAM — Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Joanne D. Quiones, J.), rendered March 31, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of harassment in the second degree, and imposed sentence.ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law §240.26 [1]). Defendant’s contention on appeal, that the evidence was legally insufficient, is not preserved for appellate review as defense counsel made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal (see People v. Carncross, 14 NY3d 319, 324-325 [2010]; People v. Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.In conducting an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), this court accords great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor. This court must weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony. We must then determine, based on the credible evidence, whether a different result would have been unreasonable (see People v. Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v. Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; People v. Zephyrin, 52 AD3d 543 [2008]). Here, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the credible evidence.In view of the foregoing, defense counsel’s failure to make a specific motion for a trial order of dismissal based on a claim that the evidence was legally insufficient does not, contrary to defendant’s contention, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v. Ennis, 11 NY3d 403, 415 [2008]).Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.PESCE, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.March 1, 2019
