| People v Lapham |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03884 [117 AD3d 1341] |
| May 29, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vChristopher Walter Lapham, Appellant. |
Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant.
Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Timothy G. Blatchley ofcounsel), for respondent.
Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County(Lawliss, J.), rendered November 5, 2012, which revoked defendant's probation andimposed a sentence of imprisonment.
Defendant was convicted of criminal contempt in the first degree and, in May 2012,received a sentence of five years of probation, and an order of protection was issued infavor of the mother of his child. As conditions of his probation, defendant was to refrainfrom committing any new offenses and comply with the order of protection. However, inSeptember 2012, the mother reported to the police that defendant had telephoned her anda declaration of delinquency was issued. Following a hearing, County Court found thatdefendant had willfully violated both the order of protection and the terms and conditionsof his probation, revoked his probation and sentenced him to 1 to 3 years in prison.Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. The People have the burden of proving a probation violation by apreponderance of the evidence (see CPL 410.70 [3]; People v Filipowicz, 111AD3d 1022, 1022 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1156 [2014]; People v Beauvais, 101 AD3d1488, 1489 [2012]). Here, the mother testified that she dated defendant for fouryears and had a child with him, and that she recognized his voice as the caller from anunlisted number. Although defendant and his family members testified that he had notmade such call, their testimony was inconsistent in [*2]material respects and County Court found the mother to bethe most credible witness. Thus, according appropriate deference to County Court'scredibility determinations, the record supports the finding that defendant violated theterms of his probation (see People v Filipowicz, 111 AD3d at 1023; People v D'Entremont, 95AD3d 1507, 1508 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1025 [2012]).
McCarthy, Rose, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.