PEOPLE v. PATTERSON (2021)

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

In an information, the People charged defendant with assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]), attempted assault in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00 [1]), menacing in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.15 [1]), and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]), based on an incident at her mother's nursing home during which defendant, the complainant's sister, allegedly struck the complainant, causing his hand to hit his eye. The charge of assault in the third degree was subsequently dismissed and, after a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of harassment in the second degree and acquitted of the remaining counts. On appeal, defendant's sole contention is that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because her brother was not a credible witness.

In fulfilling our responsibility to independently review the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), and giving due deference to the trial court's opportunity to “view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor” (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; see also People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006] [“whether the finder of fact was a judge or a jury ․ those who see and hear the witnesses can assess their credibility and reliability in a manner that is far superior to that of reviewing judges who must rely on the printed record”] [citation omitted]), we find that it cannot be said that the verdict of guilt of harassment in the second degree was against the weight of the evidence (see e.g. People v Wallace, 53 AD3d 795, 797 [2008] [“Credibility is generally an issue for the trier of fact whose province it is to believe all or part of a witness's testimony, even though it is at times confusing and inconsistent”] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; People v Jones, 141 AD2d 667, 668 [1988] [same]).

Here, the complainant testified that defendant threw a punch at his face, which he blocked with his hand but caused his hand to strike his eye. While the Criminal Court declined to accept all of the complainant's testimony as truthful or accurate, it credited so much of his testimony as was necessary to establish the elements of harassment in the second degree, namely that defendant, “with intent to harass, annoy or alarm” the complainant, had struck or otherwise subjected him to physical contact, or attempted or threatened to do the same (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; see People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 448 [2007] [harassment in the second degree is committed by “petty slaps, shoves, kicks and the like delivered out of hostility, meanness and similar motives”] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.