Opinion
2014-01-8
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Marshall TUCKER, appellant.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jason R. Richards and Joseph Mogelnicki of counsel), for respondent.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jason R. Richards and Joseph Mogelnicki of counsel), for respondent.
, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz, J.), rendered January 18, 2011, convicting him of criminal mischief in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05 [2] ) his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he damaged property with a value in excess of $250 ( seePenal Law § 145.05 [2] ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's conviction of criminal mischief in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. Towsley, 85 A.D.3d 1549, 1550, 924 N.Y.S.2d 708; People v. Katovich, 238 A.D.2d 751, 752, 656 N.Y.S.2d 499; People v. Dixon, 184 A.D.2d 725, 726, 587 N.Y.S.2d 185). Moreover, upon our independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to criminal mischief in the third degree 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; People v. Agron, 106 A.D.3d 1126, 1128–1129, 964 N.Y.S.2d 694). The evidence adduced at trial, including a surveillance video, established that the defendant smashed two security cameras with a hammer until they stopped working. Moreover, an employee of the company that was responsible for the installation of the security cameras testified that each camera was worth $373.50.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.