PEOPLE v. GALANTINO (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Howard E. Sturim, J.), dated May 28, 2024.  The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPL 330.30(1) to set aside a jury verdict convicting him of aggravated cruelty to animals on legal sufficiency grounds.  Justice Wan has been substituted for Justice Wooten (see 22 NYCRR 1250.1[b] ).

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPL 330.30(1) to set aside the jury verdict convicting him of aggravated cruelty to animals on legal sufficiency grounds is denied, count one of the indictment and the verdict thereon are reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, including sentencing the defendant on that count.

On March 14, 2020, the complainants were walking, among other pets, a four-pound nine-year-old Yorkshire Terrier, named Mocha, near their home in Rockville Centre.  The defendant was walking ahead of them, and they watched as the defendant's dog defecated on the nearby grass, and the defendant failed to clean it up.  The complainants confronted the defendant which led to an argument.  During that altercation, the defendant kicked Mocha, and euthanasia was thereafter administered to Mocha.

Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of, inter alia, aggravated cruelty to animals.  Thereafter, the defendant moved, among other things, pursuant to CPL 330.30(1) to set aside the verdict convicting him of aggravated cruelty to animals on legal sufficiency grounds.  The People opposed the motion.  In an order dated May 28, 2024, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant's motion.  The People appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 330.30(1), a trial court may set aside or modify a guilty verdict before sentence on “[a]ny ground appearing in the record which, if raised upon an appeal from a prospective judgment of conviction, would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court.”  In considering a motion pursuant to CPL 330.30(1), a trial court may only consider questions of law, not fact (see People v. Ventura, 66 N.Y.2d 693, 695, 496 N.Y.S.2d 416, 487 N.E.2d 273;  People v. Davidson, 122 A.D.3d 937, 997 N.Y.S.2d 477;  People v. Sadowski, 173 A.D.2d 873, 873–874, 571 N.Y.S.2d 77).  “Moreover, a trial court may only consider claims of legal error under CPL 330.30(1) where those claims are properly preserved for appellate review” (People v. Davidson, 122 A.D.3d at 938, 997 N.Y.S.2d 477;  see People v. Thomas, 8 A.D.3d 303, 303, 777 N.Y.S.2d 673).  “[A] defendant who presents evidence after a court has declined to grant a trial motion to dismiss made at the close of the People's case waives subsequent review of that determination” (People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329;  see People v. Kolupa, 13 N.Y.3d 786, 787, 887 N.Y.S.2d 536, 916 N.E.2d 430;  People v. Devitt, 214 A.D.3d 825, 826, 183 N.Y.S.3d 758;  People v. Faraone, 186 A.D.3d 1394, 1394, 128 N.Y.S.3d 867).

Here, although the defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People's case, since the defendant failed to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal after all of the evidence, he failed to preserve his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see People v. Kolupa, 13 N.Y.3d at 787, 887 N.Y.S.2d 536, 916 N.E.2d 430;  People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329;  People v. Devitt, 214 A.D.3d at 825, 183 N.Y.S.3d 758;  People v. Faraone, 186 A.D.3d at 1394, 128 N.Y.S.3d 867), notwithstanding his subsequent motion, among other things, pursuant to CPL 330.30(1) to set aside the verdict convicting him of aggravated cruelty to animals on legal sufficiency grounds (see People v. Decker, 218 A.D.3d 1026, 1029, 195 N.Y.S.3d 160).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court was without power to consider it (see People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d at 61, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329;  People v. Taylor, 187 A.D.3d 58, 61, 129 N.Y.S.3d 469;  People v. Sturges, 164 A.D.3d 616, 618–619, 82 N.Y.S.3d 85).

Accordingly, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from, deny that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPL 330.30(1) to set aside the jury verdict convicting him of aggravated cruelty to animals on legal sufficiency grounds, reinstate count one of the indictment and the verdict thereon, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

BARROS, J.P., DOWLING, WAN and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.