Opinion
2006-1121 OR CR.
Decided on July 2, 2008.
Appeal from judgments of the City Court of Middletown, Orange County (Steven W. Brockett, J.), rendered June 9, 2006. The judgments convicted defendant, upon jury verdicts, of reckless endangerment in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child and reckless driving.
Judgments of conviction affirmed.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and SCHEINKMAN, JJ.
Upon this appeal, defendant contends that the judgments convicting him of reckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.20), endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10) and reckless driving (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212), were not supported by legally sufficient evidence to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence and that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial.
At the conclusion of the People's case, defendant's motion to dismiss the charges on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was denied by the court. Defendant then proceeded to present evidence in his own behalf. At the conclusion of the trial, defendant did not renew his motion to dismiss the charges. Accordingly, he failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient ( see CPL 470.05; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61). In any event, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. We note that while the evidence in a given case, involving a traffic infraction with a child as a passenger in the vehicle, might not evince conduct which is so egregious as to establish defendant's guilt of endangering the welfare of a child ( see People v Chase, 186 Misc 2d 487 [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists [2000]), in the case at bar, defendant acted knowingly so as to cause a true likelihood of injury to the child. Moreover, upon our review of the evidence in light of the elements as charged at the time of trial, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilty were not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342).
Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor's summation remark, "what defendant wanted the jury to believe was outrageous," deprived him of a fair trial ( see CPL 470.05; People v Garner, 27 AD3d 764 ). Similarly unpreserved for appellate review is defendant's contention that the prosecutor improperly commented that defendant ran a traffic light since, following defense counsel's objection to such comment, the court gave a curative instruction, and counsel did not request a further instruction or move for a mistrial ( see People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944; People v Muniz , 44 AD3d 1074 ). Accordingly, the judgments convicting defendant of reckless endangerment in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child and reckless driving are affirmed.
Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.