PEOPLE v. LEWIS (2022)

Judgment of conviction (Kate Paek, J.), rendered December 14, 2017, affirmed.

Defendant's challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to particular elements of the charged offenses are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of attempted endangering the welfare of a child (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 260.10[1]) and harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26[1]) beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court, as fact finder, could reasonably conclude that defendant school monitor - who grabbed the arm of the child victim (who was simply speaking to his classmates when he was not supposed to), then forcefully held the child's arm with a hard, sustained grip while pulling him to the back of the line, causing multiple bruises - was aware that his conduct could likely result in harm to a child (see People v Zeifman, 11 AD3d 288 [2004]; People v Vasquez, 75 Misc 3d 132[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50451[U][App Term, 2nd Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2022]) and acted with the intent to harass, annoy and alarm (see People v Correa, 75 AD3d 478, 479 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 892 [2010]; People v Jackson, 66 Misc 3d 132[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 52081[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2019]).

Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis upon which to disturb the trial court's determinations concerning credibility.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur