| People v Tucker |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00135 [113 AD3d 642] |
| January 8, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Marshall Tucker, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jason R. Richards and JosephMogelnicki of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Berkowitz, J.), rendered January 18, 2011, convicting him of criminal mischief in thethird degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2])his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he damagedproperty with a value in excess of $250 (see Penal Law § 145.05 [2]). Inany event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (seePeople v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient tosupport the defendant's conviction of criminal mischief in the third degree beyond areasonable doubt (see People vTowsley, 85 AD3d 1549, 1550 [2011]; People v Katovich, 238 AD2d751, 752 [1997]; People v Dixon, 184 AD2d 725, 726 [1992]). Moreover, uponour independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied thatthe verdict of guilt as to criminal mischief in the third degree was not against the weightof the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]; People v Agron, 106 AD3d 1126, 1128-1129 [2013]). Theevidence adduced at trial, including a surveillance video, established that the defendantsmashed two security cameras with a hammer until they stopped working. Moreover, anemployee of the company that was responsible for the installation of the security camerastestified that each camera was worth $373.50.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Roman,Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.