PEOPLE v. SALEEM APPELLANT (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cassandra Mullen, J.), rendered October 21, 2019, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of endangering the welfare of a child, forcible touching, and sexual abuse in the third degree, and sentencing him to consecutive jail terms of 364 days on the first two counts and a concurrent term of 60 days for sexual abuse in the third degree, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–340, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007];  see also People v. Baque, 43 N.Y.3d 26, 229 N.Y.S.3d 62, 254 N.E.3d 606 [2024] ).  There is no basis to disturb the jury's credibility determinations.  Defendant's conduct was captured on video surveillance from multiple angles, and the jury was not required to credit his testimony that he was intoxicated at the time of the incidents.  Moreover, even if the jury credited defendant's account that he was intoxicated, “it is for the finder of the facts to decide if the extent of that intoxication was such as to negate the element of intent” (People v. Mercado, 200 A.D.2d 424, 424–425, 606 N.Y.S.2d 223 [1st Dept. 1994], lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 874, 613 N.Y.S.2d 134, 635 N.E.2d 303 [1994], lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 855, 612 N.Y.S.2d 387, 634 N.E.2d 988 [1994] ).

The court properly denied defendant's request to reinstruct the deliberating jury on intoxication because the jury's note requested the “law applicable to the charges” (see People v. Allen, 69 N.Y.2d 915, 916, 516 N.Y.S.2d 199, 508 N.E.2d 934 [1987] ).  Moreover, the jury did not seek additional clarification or otherwise express dissatisfaction with the court's response, supporting the conclusion that the court correctly interpreted the jury's request and provided a meaningful response with the complete information sought (see People v. Aguilar, 41 N.Y.3d 335, 339, 210 N.Y.S.3d 727, 234 N.E.3d 343 [2024] ).