Opinion
570318/06.
Decided July 22, 2008.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered May 12, 2006, after a jury trial, convicting him of stalking in the fourth degree (three counts), aggravated harassment in the second degree (one count), and harassment in the second degree (two counts), and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction (Anthony J. Ferrara, J. and jury), rendered May 12, 2006, affirmed.
PRESENT: DAVIS, J.P., SCHOENFELD, HEITLER, JJ.
The defendant's present arguments relating to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, to the extent preserved for appellate review, are lacking in merit. Ample evidence to support the "reasonable fear" element of fourth-degree stalking under Penal Law § 120.45(1), was presented by the complainants' clear and consistent accounts of the "enraged" defendant's abusive behavior during May of 2005, when he repeatedly approached them in and around the apartment building in which he and the female complainants lived, calling the male complainant "the devil" and threatening to kill all of them ( see People v Noka, 51 AD3d 468). Read against the backdrop of defendant's campaign of threats and intimidation, the letter delivered by defendant to the female complainants' apartment in late May of 2005, stating in part that "the devil is not going to win" and that defendant would "let God treat you with severity," constituted aggravated harassment in the second degree ( see Penal Law § 240.30). "Despite the absence of any direct testimony that the letter . . . actually annoyed or alarmed the [complainant to whom it was addressed], the trier of facts could reasonably conclude that the communication was likely to cause annoyance or alarm in the circumstances" ( People v Johnson, 208 AD2d 1051, 1052, lv denied 85 NY2d 910). Moreover, defendant's "intent to harass or annoy is readily inferable from his pattern of conduct toward the [complainants]" ( Johnson, 208 AD2d at 1052).
To the extent that defendant is raising a constitutional claim, such claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.