From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Moore

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department
Jul 22, 2021
No. 2021-50710 (N.Y. App. Div. Jul. 22, 2021)

Opinion

2021-50710

07-22-2021

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kleo Moore, Appellant.

Suffolk County Legal Aid Society (Amanda E. Schaefer of counsel), for appellant. Suffolk County District Attorney (Elena Tomaro and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.


Unpublished Opinion

Suffolk County Legal Aid Society (Amanda E. Schaefer of counsel), for appellant.

Suffolk County District Attorney (Elena Tomaro and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.

PRESENT ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, J.P., JERRY GARGUILO, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Riverhead, Suffolk County (Allen M. Smith, J.), rendered September 25, 2019. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of assault in the third degree, and imposed sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]), and sentence was imposed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational person could have found the elements of the crime of assault in the third degree proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349 [2007]; People v Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926 [1994]). The element of physical injury (see Penal Law § 120.00 [1]) was established by evidence that the complainant experienced substantial pain (see Penal Law § 10.00 [9]) when defendant pulled her hair, including the follicles, from her head during the altercation. Further, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342; People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633 [2006]).

We find defendant's remaining contention, that the sentence was harsh and excessive, to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

EMERSON, J.P., GARGUILO and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Moore

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department
Jul 22, 2021
No. 2021-50710 (N.Y. App. Div. Jul. 22, 2021)
Case details for

People v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kleo Moore, Appellant.

Court:Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department

Date published: Jul 22, 2021

Citations

No. 2021-50710 (N.Y. App. Div. Jul. 22, 2021)