PEOPLE v. KNOWINGS (2021)

Judgment of conviction (Kate Paek, J.), rendered March 23, 2017, affirmed.

The prosecutor's information was jurisdictionally valid because the information it superseded contained factual allegations establishing every element of the aggravated harassment offenses charged (see Penal Law § 240.30) and the defendant's commission thereof (see People v Inserra, 4 NY3d 30, 32 [2004]). The information recited that complainant and defendant were both employed at an organization known as Project Renewal at a time when another employee of the organization was sexually assaulted and killed in an incident that was “in the news, and widely known among employees.” The information further recited that approximately two months after the murder, when defendant “no longer worked” for Project Renewal, he telephoned complainant, the person “responsible for staffing employees,” and stated “I do not like the way you let me go. Another Project Renewal employee is going to be in the news. You bitch.”

Giving these allegations “a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading” (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), we find “as a matter of common sense and reasonable pleading” (People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 31 [2009]), that they were sufficient to support a finding that defendant made a “genuine threat[ ] of physical harm” (People v Dietze, 75 NY2d 47, 54 [1989]), which is outside the purview of First Amendment protections (75 NY2d at 52-54), and placed complainant in reasonable fear of harmful physical contact (see People v Thomas, 58 AD3d 445 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 788 [2009]).

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-9 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the Court's credibility determinations, including its rejection of defendant's testimony.

Per Curiam.

All concur.