Opinion
2014–09776 Ind. No. 14–00020
08-01-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jesse JAMES, appellant.
James D. Licata, New City, N.Y. (Ellen O'Hara Woods of counsel), for appellant. Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Tina L. Guccione of counsel), for respondent.
James D. Licata, New City, N.Y. (Ellen O'Hara Woods of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Tina L. Guccione of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (William K. Nelson, J.), rendered September 23, 2014, convicting him of criminal mischief in the second degree (two counts) and criminal tampering in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of criminal mischief in the second degree and criminal tampering in the first degree for cutting Verizon fiber optic cables at two different locations in the Town of Clarkstown.
The defendant's contentions as to the legal sufficiency of the evidence are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Carncross, 14 N.Y.3d 319, 324–325, 901 N.Y.S.2d 112, 927 N.E.2d 532 ; People v. Seignious, 114 A.D.3d 883, 980 N.Y.S.2d 561 ; People v. Josey, 82 A.D.3d 1009, 918 N.Y.S.2d 593 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the 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 of both crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, documents showing the costs to repair Verizon's fiber optic cables were properly admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a] ; People v. Brown, 13 N.Y.3d 332, 341, 890 N.Y.S.2d 415, 918 N.E.2d 927 ; People v. Cratsley, 86 N.Y.2d 81, 89, 629 N.Y.S.2d 992, 653 N.E.2d 1162 ; People v. Guidice, 83 N.Y.2d 630, 635, 612 N.Y.S.2d 350, 634 N.E.2d 951 ; People v. Meekins, 34 A.D.3d 843, 828 N.Y.S.2d 83, affd 10 N.Y.3d 136, 855 N.Y.S.2d 20, 884 N.E.2d 1019 ; People v. DiSalvo, 284 A.D.2d 547, 727 N.Y.S.2d 146 ). Moreover, those records established that the amount of damage to the cables caused by the defendant exceeded $1,500, as required for a conviction of criminal mischief in the second degree (see Penal Law § 145.10 ).
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, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt 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 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., SGROI, MALTESE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.