THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. ROBERT WILLIAMS ALSO KNOWN AS ROBERT WILLIAMS II ALSO KNOWN AS ROBERT WILLIAMS ALSO KNOWN AS ROBERT JAMES WILLIAMS DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by reducing the conviction of aggravated cruelty to animals under count 2 of the indictment to overdriving, torturing and injuring animals; failure to provide proper sustenance (Agriculture and Markets Law § 353) and vacating the sentence imposed on that count and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Genesee County Court for sentencing on that count.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of two counts of aggravated cruelty to animals (Agriculture and Markets Law § 353-a) and two counts of criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00 [1]).

Defendant contends that his speedy trial rights were violated because the People failed to provide mandatory discovery materials—specifically, materials under CPL 245.20 (1) (g)—thereby rendering any certificate of compliance invalid and any statement of readiness illusory. We reject that contention. The People complied with their discovery obligations inasmuch as they disclosed the existence of the materials at issue and made them accessible to defense counsel upon request (see CPL 245.20 [1]). It cannot be said that the People failed to “disclose” or “permit the defendant to discover, inspect, copy, photograph and test” the materials at issue (CPL 245.20 [1]).

We agree with defendant, however, that the evidence is legally insufficient with respect to the element of serious physical injury under count 2, charging defendant with aggravated cruelty to animals with respect to the dog named George. With respect to that count, the People were required to prove that, “with no justifiable purpose, [defendant] ․ intentionally cause[d] serious physical injury to a companion animal with aggravated cruelty” (Agriculture and Markets Law § 353-a [1]). Article 7 of the Agriculture and Markets Law, which governs “Licensing, Identification and Control of Dogs,” defines serious physical injury as “physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious or protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ” (§ 108 [29] [emphasis added]; see CJI2d[NY] Agriculture and Markets Law § 353-a; cf. Penal Law § 10.00 [10]).

Although the People presented evidence that the dog named George suffered injuries, including a disfigurement, we conclude that the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was a serious disfigurement (see generally People v McKinnon, 15 NY3d 311, 315-316 [2010]; People v Harris, 186 AD3d 907, 911-912 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1120 [2021]; People v Marshall, 162 AD3d 1110, 1114 [3d Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1150 [2018]). The People similarly failed to establish that George suffered protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 [29]). We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the conviction of aggravated cruelty to animals under count 2 of the indictment to overdriving, torturing and injuring animals; failure to provide proper sustenance pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 (see CPL 470.15 [2] [a]; see also People v Heatley, 116 AD3d 23, 29 [4th Dept 2014], appeal dismissed 25 NY3d 933 [2015]) and vacating the sentence imposed on that count, and we remit the matter to County Court for sentencing on that conviction.

Contrary to defendant's contention, the sentence of probation is not unduly harsh or severe. We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants further modification or reversal of the judgment.

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court