PEOPLE v. CONTI (2020)

Appeal from three judgments of the Justice Court of the Town of Stanford, Dutchess County (Frank T. Webber, J.), rendered December 19, 2018. The judgments convicted defendant, upon jury verdicts, of criminal tampering in the third degree and two charges of aggravated harassment in the second degree, respectively, and imposed sentences.

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Defendant was charged in three accusatory instruments with criminal tampering in the third degree (Penal Law § 145.14) and with two charges of aggravated harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.30 [1] [b]), respectively. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of the three charges. Defendant contends that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]; People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 636 [2006]), after weighing “the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony” (People v. Zephyrin, 52 AD3d 543, 543 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ), we must “determine ․ [whether] an acquittal ․ would not have been unreasonable based upon the evidence presented, and ․ [whether] the [jury] failed to accord the evidence the weight it should have been accorded” (id.; see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348). Upon a review of the record, we are of the opinion that the verdicts finding defendant guilty of criminal tampering in the third degree and the two charges of aggravated harassment in the second degree were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 NY3d at 644-647).

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.