PEOPLE v. DALE (2010)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of arson in the third degree (Penal Law § 150.10[1] ) and overdriving, torturing and injuring animals (Agriculture and Markets Law § 353).   Contrary to the contention of defendant, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that he intended to set fire to his mobile home (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   It is undisputed that defendant was alone in the mobile home at the time of the fire.   The People presented the testimony of a fire investigator, who testified that the fire did not have a natural, chemical, mechanical or electrical cause, and that it was not caused by a cigarette.   Furthermore, the People presented evidence that defendant repeatedly threatened to set fire to the mobile home and, indeed, had made such threats on the day of the fire.   We thus conclude on the record before us that “there is [a] valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial” (id.).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his remaining contention concerning the alleged legal insufficiency of the evidence inasmuch as he did not move for a trial order of dismissal on that ground (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919).

Contrary to the further contention of defendant in his main and pro se supplemental briefs, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we conclude that the verdict is not 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).   With respect to the arson conviction, “[t]he People presented evidence establishing that the fire was neither accidental nor the result of natural causes, and they presented overwhelming circumstantial evidence that defendant set the fire” (People v. Gardner, 26 A.D.3d 741, 741-742, 808 N.Y.S.2d 519, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 848, 816 N.Y.S.2d 754, 849 N.E.2d 977).   With respect to the conviction of overdriving, torturing and injuring animals, the People presented overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the fire started by defendant in the mobile home caused the death of a dog found therein (see generally Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1).   We further reject the contention of defendant in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).   Defendant failed to “ ‘demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations' for [defense] counsel's alleged shortcomings” (People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584, quoting People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698).   The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant in his main and pro se supplemental briefs and conclude that they are without merit.

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

MEMORANDUM: