Opinion
2017–12990 Ind. No. 1570/16
08-19-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Christopher V. HICKS, Appellant.
Thomas J. Butler, Melville, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Douglas Noll and Mary Faldich of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas J. Butler, Melville, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Douglas Noll and Mary Faldich of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (William Donnino, J.), rendered November 13, 2017, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and criminal mischief in the second degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of attempted assault in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review, as defense counsel made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins , 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Myles , 172 A.D.3d 752, 99 N.Y.S.3d 433 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes , 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Lopez , 155 A.D.3d 892, 893, 63 N.Y.S.3d 677 ). Moreover, upon our independent review of the record (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on that charge was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero , 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ), and, in any event, without merit.
BALKIN, J.P., BARROS, CONNOLLY and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.