PEOPLE v. PEREZ (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (James A. McCarty, Jr., J.), rendered August 17, 2023, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he intended to cause physical injury to the complainant is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Komynar, 210 AD3d 698, 699;  People v Ranot, 194 AD3d 967, 967).  In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the requisite intent to cause physical injury to the complainant (see Penal Law §§ 10.00[9], 120.05[2] ), which may be inferred from the defendant's conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see People v Komynar, 210 AD3d at 699;  People v Melendez, 183 AD3d 597, 598).  Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5];  People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348–349), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410;  People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).  Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on the charge of assault in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 636–638).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel.  The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712;  People v Komynar, 210 AD3d at 699;  People v Robinson, 163 AD3d 1002, 1003), and the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668).

Moreover, the defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to counsel by the County Court's refusal to assign him new counsel (see People v Graham, 188 AD3d 909, 909;  People v Smith, 191 AD2d 471, 471).  Under the circumstances of this case, the court providently exercised its discretion in determining that there was no good cause shown for the defendant's requests, made through his counsel, to relieve his assigned counsel (see People v Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99–100;  People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 510–511).

The defendant's contention that the sentence imposed improperly penalized him for exercising his right to trial is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not raise it at sentencing (see People v Robinson, 195 AD3d 950, 952).  In any event, the record fails to establish that the sentence imposed was vindictive or that the County Court penalized the defendant for exercising his right to proceed to trial (see People v Cardoza, 247 AD3d 779, 780;  People v Genyard, 174 AD3d 736, 736).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.