Opinion
2000-05419, 2001-04883
Submitted May 20, 2002
August 19, 2002.
Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), rendered May 18, 2000, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree (16 counts), and aggravated harassment in the second degree (six counts), after a nonjury trial, and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 1 1/3 to 4 years on the first and third counts of the indictment charging him with criminal contempt in the first degree, to run concurrently with 14 indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 1 1/3 to 4 years imposed on the remaining counts of criminal contempt in the first degree, and six concurrent definite terms of imprisonment of one year for aggravated harassment in the second degree, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court (Resnick, J.), dated February 20, 2001, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL article 440 to vacate the judgment.
Deborah Wolikow Loewenberg, New City, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Michael E. Bongiorno, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Ann C. Sullivan and Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which provided that the terms of imprisonment imposed on the first and third counts of the indictment are to run consecutively to each other, and substituting therefor a provision that those terms of imprisonment are to run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
The People concede that the defendant was illegally sentenced to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment upon his convictions of counts one and three of the indictment charging him with criminal contempt in the first degree in violation of Penal Law § 215.51(b)(ii). We agree. The proof adduced at trial was that both counts were based upon the same conduct (see Penal Law § 70.25; People v. Ramirez, 89 N.Y.2d 444; People v. Laureano, 87 N.Y.2d 640; People v. Medina, 152 A.D.2d 602).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, GOLDSTEIN and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.