Summary
In People v Gonzalez (200 AD2d 759 [2d Dept 1994]) the Court found that the evidence at trial, which showed that defendant merely walked by the complainant's home on his way to his own home, was legally insufficient to establish that he violated the order of protection. Because this is not a trial, however, there is no way of knowing whether the defendant had any legitimate reason for being on the same street as the complainant, whether there is any innocent explanation for the defendant's conduct, or whether there is even any truth to the complainant's allegations.
Summary of this case from People v. NawazOpinion
January 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.
Although the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove his guilt, we are nevertheless compelled, under the circumstances of this case, to reach that issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction and to reverse the judgment of conviction.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally insufficient to establish that the defendant violated the order of protection by "going to" his daughter's home. Rather, the evidence only established that the defendant walked by his daughter's home while walking in the direction of his own home. Notably, the defendant did not stop in front of his daughter's home and did not attempt to enter the gate leading to the home. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.