Opinion
2021-51260
12-23-2021
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher Amann, Appellant.
Anthony M. Giordano, for appellant. Rockland County District Attorney (Jacob B. Sher and Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
Anthony M. Giordano, for appellant.
Rockland County District Attorney (Jacob B. Sher and Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, P.J., TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Haverstraw, Rockland County (John K. Grant, J.), rendered January 27, 2020. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of harassment in the second degree, and imposed sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of that court (Ivonne S. Santos, J.) dated November 14, 2018 denying defendant's motion which sought to dismiss the accusatory instrument on facial insufficiency grounds.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Defendant and a codefendant were jointly charged in an information with one count of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [3]). It was alleged in the information and an accompanying supporting deposition signed by the complainant that, over a 16-month time period, in the common apartment building where defendant and the complainant resided as next door neighbors, defendant "repeatedly caused [the complainant] to fear the safety of [her]self... [her] husband... and [her] daughter." According to the complainant, defendant, either alone or with the codefendant, would "stare[] at [the complainant] on numerous occasions"; stand in the stairwell "in the way [of the complainant's daughter] attempting to block her way and yell obscenities at her"; and "bang on the walls and doors to our apartment." The codefendant was acquitted after trial. Defendant was convicted of harassment in the second degree and was later sentenced to serve a seven-day term of incarceration and to pay a $250 fine, which sentence was stayed pending resolution of this appeal.
We reject as unavailing defendant's argument that the information is facially insufficient because it does not allege the relevant time frame with adequate specificity. If an information alleges "a time interval which is so large that it is virtually impossible for a defendant to answer the charges and to prepare a defense, dismissal should follow even [where] the People have acted diligently and a shorter time period cannot be alleged" (People v Beauchamp, 74 N.Y.2d 639, 641 [1989]). However, in this case, where the harassment in the second degree charge is a course of conduct offense (see Penal Law § 240.26 [3]), in light of the quantity, variety and continual nature of the harassing incidents alleged, the 16-month time period given in the information was permissible, as it" 'reasonably serves the function of protecting defendant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation..., so as to enable the defendant to prepare a defense and to use the judgment against further prosecution for the same'" offense (People v Rozario, 20 Misc.3d 76, 79 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008], quoting People v Watt, 81 N.Y.2d 772, 774 [1993]; see People v Martinez, 169 A.D.3d 587, 588 [2019]).
Upon a review of the record, we find, contrary to defendant's other contention on appeal, that the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the trial evidence.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
RUDERMAN, P.J., DRISCOLL and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.