Opinion
2012-09-28
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald DOCKERY, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Alan Williams of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley Rae Small of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Alan Williams of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley Rae Small of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a nonjury trial of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51[b][v] ) and false personation (§ 190.23). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the allegations in the People's bill of particulars varied materially from the evidence adduced by them at trial ( see People v. Inocencio, 173 A.D.2d 732, 571 N.Y.S.2d 1016,lv. denied78 N.Y.2d 967, 574 N.Y.S.2d 947, 580 N.E.2d 419;see generally People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[6][a] ). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contentions that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of criminal contempt because the victim was not properly named in the order of protection and because that order was improperly issued pursuant to CPL 530.13 rather than CPL 530.11(1)(e). Even assuming, arguendo, that his motion for a trial order of dismissal was timely despite having been made after he rested, we conclude that defendant's motion was not “ ‘specifically directed’ at” the alleged deficiencies raised on appeal ( Gray, 86 N.Y.2d at 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919). In any event, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), is legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trial ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), and affording appropriate deference to County Court's credibility determinations ( see People v. White, 43 A.D.3d 1407, 1408, 842 N.Y.S.2d 661,lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 1010, 850 N.Y.S.2d 398, 880 N.E.2d 884), we conclude that the alleged deficiencies in the evidence are not so substantial as to render the verdict against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Defendant's further contention that the court erred in admitting in evidence the certified copy of the order of protection and thus that the evidence is legally insufficient with respect to the existence of a valid order is lacking in merit, inasmuch as the record establishes that the copy was properly certified ( seeCPLR 4540 [b]; cf. People v. Smith, 258 A.D.2d 245, 249–250, 697 N.Y.S.2d 783,lv. denied94 N.Y.2d 829, 702 N.Y.S.2d 600, 724 N.E.2d 392).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.