| People v Greenlee |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01507 [70 AD3d 966] |
| February 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v GlenGreenlee, Appellant. |
—[*1] Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Collini,J.), rendered October 18, 2007, convicting him of intimidating a victim or witness in the seconddegree (two counts), tampering with a witness in the second degree (two counts), and assault inthe third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged with both intimidating a witness and tampering with a witness ontwo different occasions. Since he moved to dismiss only the charges pertaining to the secondoccasion on legal sufficiency grounds, and did not allege any evidentiary deficiency for chargespertaining to the first attack until his postverdict motion, his contention that the evidence waslegally insufficient to prove the existence of an ongoing criminal investigation at the time of thefirst attack is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vHawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]; People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820, 821 [1990];People v Hutchinson, 57 AD3d 565 [2008]).
In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (seePeople v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant toCPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the admission of the complainant's unredacted medicalrecords constituted reversible error is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Carmona, 205 AD2d 443, 444 [1994]). In any event, the contentionis without merit. The medical records included a section stating that the complainant's attackerswere friends of her former boyfriend, who were attempting to prevent her from testifying againstthe former boyfriend in a domestic violence proceeding. This information was provided in thecomplainant's social work intake assessment and discharge planning form, and likely was reliedon by the hospital personnel in developing a discharge plan to ensure the complainant's safety(see Williams v Alexander, 309 NY 283, 288 [1955]).[*2]
The defendant's contention that trial counsel's failure topreserve certain claims for appellate review constituted ineffective assistance of counsel iswithout merit (see People v Taberas, 60 AD3d 791, 793 [2009]; People v Coles,43 AD3d 1424 [2007]; People v Acevedo, 44 AD3d 168, 173 [2007]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Roman, JJ., concur.