People
v.
McIntosh

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTSApr 28, 2017
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 50604 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

2014-616 Q CR

04-28-2017

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Janine McIntosh, Appellant.

Appellate Advocates (Samuel Brown, Esq.), for appellant. District Attorney Queens County (Daniel O'Boyle, Esq.), for respondent.


PRESENT: :

Appellate Advocates (Samuel Brown, Esq.), for appellant.

District Attorney Queens County (Daniel O'Boyle, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (John F. Zoll, J.), rendered February 7, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal mischief in the fourth degree.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find, contrary to defendant's contention on appeal, that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00 [1]) beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence established that defendant had intentionally damaged various parts of a vehicle owned by Christopher Nicholas without his permission. We do not find the minor discrepancies in the testimony offered by the People sufficient to render it incredible as a matter of law (see People v Witzgall, 12 Misc 3d 130[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51037[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]). Upon a review of the record, we find that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, P. J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur. Decision Date: April 28, 2017