PEOPLE v. BRYANT (2004)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of two counts of menacing in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.14 [1] ), and one count each of criminal mischief in the second degree (§ 145.10), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02[1] ), reckless endangerment in the second degree (§ 120.20) and reckless driving (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212).   Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying the jury's request for use of the “indictment sheet” during deliberations.   We disagree.   Although the court was authorized to provide a copy of the indictment to the jurors (see People v. Moore, 71 N.Y.2d 684, 529 N.Y.S.2d 739, 525 N.E.2d 460), it was not required to do so.   In requesting a copy of the indictment, the jury indicated that further instruction with respect to four counts was needed, and the court thereupon provided a readback of the instructions with respect to those counts.   The court thus complied with CPL 310.30 by providing a meaningful response to the jury's request for information (see People v. Miller, 286 A.D.2d 981, 981-982, 730 N.Y.S.2d 617, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 657, 737 N.Y.S.2d 58, 762 N.E.2d 936;  see generally People v. Lourido, 70 N.Y.2d 428, 435, 522 N.Y.S.2d 98, 516 N.E.2d 1212).

 Defendant further contends that the evidence is legally insufficient with respect to his conviction of menacing, criminal mischief, and criminal possession of a weapon because he did not act intentionally and the evidence is insufficient to establish that the damage to the victim's vehicle exceeded $1,500.  “Intent can be inferred from the act itself or from the defendant's conduct and the surrounding circumstances” (People v. Douglas, 291 A.D.2d 455, 455, 737 N.Y.S.2d 545).   Here, there is legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer that defendant intended to place the victim in reasonable fear of physical injury by, inter alia, displaying a tire iron (see Penal Law § 120.14[1];  Matter of Jonathan M., 4 A.D.3d 154, 155, 772 N.Y.S.2d 42), that defendant intended to damage the victim's vehicle (see § 145.10;  People v. Gianni, 303 A.D.2d 1012, 756 N.Y.S.2d 688, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 581, 764 N.Y.S.2d 391, 796 N.E.2d 483), and that defendant intended to use a dangerous instrument (i.e., his own vehicle) against the victim (see § 265.01[2];  § 265.02[1] ).   The evidence also is legally sufficient to establish that the damage to the victim's vehicle exceeded $1,500 (see § 145.10;  see generally People v. Woodard, 148 A.D.2d 997, 997-998, 539 N.Y.S.2d 229, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 749, 545 N.Y.S.2d 124, 543 N.E.2d 767).   The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Defendant's further contentions that two counts are inconsistent and that the verdict is repugnant are not preserved for our review (see People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985, 987, 499 N.Y.S.2d 378, 489 N.E.2d 1280;  People v. Waller, 239 A.D.2d 934, 661 N.Y.S.2d 818, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 1015, 666 N.Y.S.2d 110, 688 N.E.2d 1394;  People v. Carey, 151 A.D.2d 989, 542 N.Y.S.2d 428, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 806, 546 N.Y.S.2d 564, 545 N.E.2d 878), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: