| People v Kohler |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05739 [85 AD3d 1203] |
| June 28, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Joseph Kohler, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith Sternberg of counsel; MatthewC. Frankel on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.),rendered March 19, 2009, convicting him of leaving the scene of a fatal accident withoutreporting and reckless driving, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of leaving the scene of a fatal accident without reporting beyond a reasonabledoubt. Moreover, upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt wasnot against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Given thecircumstances of the accident, the damage to the defendant's car, and the immediate response bybystanders to block traffic and assist the decedent, while the defendant was still in proximity tothe scene, the evidence established that the defendant knew or had cause to know that he hadcaused personal injury to another person (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 [2][a]). The evidence did not support the defendant's allegation that he thought he had hit a bird or apothole.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt ofreckless driving is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, it iswithout merit. Moreover, upon reviewing the record here, the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention regarding his challenge to the trial court's Sandoval ruling(see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is without merit. The trial court limitedcross-examination to the defendant's most recent conviction, and that offense was probative ofthe defendant's willingness to place his interests above those of society (see People v Seymour, 77 AD3d976 [2010]; People v Diaz, 50AD3d 919 [2008]; People vMyron, 28 AD3d 681 [2006], cert denied 549 US 1326 [2007]). Under thesecircumstances, the defendant failed to sustain his burden of "demonstrating that the prejudicialeffect of the evidence of his prior conviction so outweighed its probative worth that its exclusionwas warranted" (People v Myron, 28 AD3d at 683; see People v Mackey, 49NY2d 274, 282 [1980]; People v [*2]Boseman, 161AD2d 601, 602 [1990]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Prudenti, P.J., Eng, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.