The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Channing Creecy, Appellant. (2022)

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

In a superseding information, defendant was charged with harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]) for threatening his then-wife with physical contact. On April 15, 2019, the Justice Court granted defendant an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) pursuant to CPL 170.55. On June 17, 2019, the People moved to vacate the ACD and restore the case to the trial calendar based upon defendant's alleged failure to comply with a condition of the ACD. By order dated January 6, 2020, the court (Ronald W. Meister, J.) granted the People's motion. Thereafter, the matter proceeded to a nonjury trial, and defendant was convicted of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]).

Contrary to defendant's contention, we find that the Justice Court did not err in granting the People's timely motion to restore defendant's case to the calendar upon its determination that dismissal of the superseding information would not be in furtherance of justice (see CPL 170.55 [2]; 530.11 [1]; People v Prokopienko, 72 AD3d 1528 [2010]; cf. People v Carter, 33 Misc 3d 14, 16 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]).

Defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the proof was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of harassment in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Sullivan, 27 Misc 3d 134[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50749[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

EMERSON, J.P., GARGUILO and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: September 29, 2022