| People v Molloy |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00007 [58 AD3d 404] |
| January 6, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Gregory Molloy, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Ellen Stanfield Friedman of counsel),for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered December21, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal contempt in the first degree (threecounts) and criminal contempt in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felonyoffender, to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly admitted evidence of prior incidents involving the same victim, since thisevidence was probative of the "reasonable fear of . . . physical injury" element ofPenal Law § 215.51 (b) (vi), as well as to explain the origin of the charges and therelationship between defendant and his victim (see People v Palladino, 47 AD3d 491, 492 [2008], lvdenied 10 NY3d 843 [2008]; People v Garvin, 37 AD3d 372 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d984 [2007]). A sufficient connection between the prior incidents and the victim's reasonable fearcould be inferred from the evidence, whose probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.
Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved and we decline toreview it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Useof the conjunctive "and" in the indictment did not obligate the People to prove more than whatwas required under the statutes (see People v Charles, 61 NY2d 321, 327-328 [1984]).
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d [*2]342, 348-349 [2007]). Defendant was not sointoxicated as to cast doubt on his ability to form the requisite intent. Concur—Lippman,P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.