| People v Bulgin |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02513 [105 AD3d 551] |
| April 16, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Delroy Bulgin, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Emily Anne Aldridge of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), rendered March29, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal mischief in the seconddegree and criminal contempt in the first degree, and sentencing him to time served and aconditional discharge, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating thecontempt conviction and dismissing that count of the indictment, and otherwise affirmed.
The People failed to prove that defendant had written or oral notice of an order ofprotection and its contents, as required for a conviction of criminal contempt in the firstdegree (People v McCowan, 85 NY2d 985, 987 [1995]; Penal Law §215.51 [d]). While the order contained check marks of unidentified origin indicating thatdefendant was present in court and was advised of the "issuance" of the order,defendant's signature was not on the order (compare People v Inserra, 4 NY3d 30, 31-33 [2004];People v D'Angelo, 284 AD2d 146, 146 [1st Dept 2001], affd 98 NY2d733 [2002]), and there was no evidence establishing that defendant was present in courtand orally advised of the prohibited conduct (compare People v Clark, 95 NY2d773 [2000]).
Contrary to defendant's assertions, there was no spillover error onto the criminalmischief conviction. There is no reasonable possibility that the contempt countinfluenced the guilty verdict on the criminal mischief count in any meaningful way (see People v Concepcion, 17NY3d 192, 197 [2011]; People v Daly, 14 NY3d 848 [2010]). Both convictionsstemmed from the same incident, in which defendant intentionally sideswiped anddamaged the victim's van while she and her fiancÉ were inside. However, proof ofdefendant's guilt of criminal mischief had nothing to do with his knowledge of the orderof protection. There was strong independent proof of defendant's guilt of criminalmischief provided by the victim, her fiancÉ, and the police officer who pursuedand arrested defendant.
In light of this determination, we find it unnecessary to address defendant'sremaining contentions. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam,Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.