Opinion
June 9, 1995
Appeal from the Niagara County Court, Punch, J.
Present — Pine, J.P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of leaving the scene of an accident without reporting it in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 (2). We reject his contention that the People failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of dog tracking evidence. The People presented evidence of the dog's pedigree, the training of the dog and her handler regarding human scent tracking, and the established record of the dog's accuracy and reliability. They also showed that the dog was introduced to a site where defendant's scent was still present (see, People v. Abdullah, 134 A.D.2d 503, 504, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 965; People v Muggelberg, 132 A.D.2d 988, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 958; People v Centolella, 61 Misc.2d 723). Further, the People presented other evidence of defendant's guilt (see, People v. Centolella, supra, at 725), and the court accorded minimal weight to the dog tracking evidence (see, People v. Abdullah, supra, at 504; People v. Muggelberg, supra; People v. Centolella, supra, at 725).
The circumstantial evidence presented at trial is legally sufficient to support the conviction, and we conclude that the verdict is not contrary to the weight of evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). The sentence imposed, a one-year term of imprisonment, is not unduly harsh or severe.