Opinion
KA 03-00148.
November 19, 2004.
Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, J.), rendered November 19, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate.
Before: Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a bench trial of aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate (Penal Law § 240.32). Defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's obtaining of a sealed indictment is unpreserved for our review ( see generally CPL 210.25, 210.35, 210.45) and is without merit in any event ( see generally 100.05, 210.05, 210.10 [3]). County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to invoke the procedures of CPL article 730 ( see People v. Laraby, 4 AD3d 749, 750, lv denied 2 NY3d 802; People v. Blackwell, 278 AD2d 804, lv denied 96 NY2d 781). In addition, the court did not err in admitting evidence of an uncharged crime or bad act committed by defendant. The evidence in question was directly probative of a material issue in the case, i.e., the criminal intent of defendant and the absence of any accident or mistake on his part ( see People v. Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 54-55; People v. Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359). There was a strong need for the evidence to resolve the factual dispute concerning defendant's intent ( see People v. Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242-243; cf. People v. Lewis, 69 NY2d 321, 327-328), and the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential prejudicial effect ( see Hudy, 73 NY2d at 55; Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d at 359-360; People v. Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 47). Contrary to defendant's further contentions, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see People v. Pysadee, 1 AD3d 959, 960, lv denied 2 NY3d 744; People v. Moore, 308 AD2d 599, 600, lv denied 1 NY3d 576; People v. Ortiz, 305 AD2d 979, lv denied 100 NY2d 564), and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see Moore, 308 AD2d at 600; People v. Stokes, 290 AD2d 71, 73-74, lv denied 97 NY2d 762, cert denied 537 US 859; see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Finally, upon our review of the record, we conclude that "the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [this] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that [defense counsel] provided meaningful representation" to defendant ( People v. Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).