People
v.
Perez

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York, First Department.Oct 22, 2012
37 Misc. 3d 132 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
37 Misc. 3d 132961 N.Y.S.2d 3602012 N.Y. Slip Op. 52010

No. 570400/11.

2012-10-22

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ramon PEREZ, Defendant–Appellant.


Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered March 3, 2011, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted petit larceny, and imposing sentence.
Present: LOWE, III, P.J., SCHOENFELD, TORRES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.


Judgment of conviction (James M. Burke, J.), rendered March 3, 2011, affirmed.

Defendant's present challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of attempted petit larceny is unpreserved for appellate review, inasmuch as he failed to move for a trial order of dismissal based on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence ( see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19 [1995] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject defendant's sufficiency claims on the merits. The intent element of the charged offense was established by the credited testimony of an assistant store manager and the properly admitted surveillance video. To the extent that defendant's purported legal sufficiency argument—impugning the store employee's testimony as “ma[king] little sense” and “def[ying] credibility”—is in reality a challenge to the conviction on weight of the evidence grounds, it is lacking in merit. We find no basis to disturb the trial court's credibility determinations.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's requests for substitute counsel since defendant, despite several suitable opportunities to be heard, failed to establish good cause ( see People v. Linares, 2 NY3d 507 [2004] ). The court reasonably concluded that defendant's general objections about a putative lack of communication with counsel were without substance.