| People v Hierro |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 07592 [122 AD3d 420] |
| November 6, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jeffrey Hierro, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Rachel T. Goldberg ofcounsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Ryan Gee of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered October15, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree(two counts) and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violentfelony offender, to an aggregate term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant did not preserve his claim that the evidence supporting the attemptedfirst-degree assault convictions was legally insufficient to establish the element of intentto cause serious physical injury, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Asan alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was notagainst the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Theevidence supports reasonable inferences that defendant slashed the victim's face with anunidentified sharp object, and that he did so with intent to cause the victim seriousphysical injury (see e.g. People v Jones, 110 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2013]).
The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's gangaffiliation, since it was highly probative of defendant's motive, and "was central to thejury's understanding of an otherwise unexplained assault" (People v Wilson, 14 AD3d463, 463 [1st [*2]Dept 2005], lv denied 4NY3d 857 [2005]). Testimony from the victim and from a police officer demonstratedwhy members of defendant's gang would be motivated to target this victim. Furthermore,the court's limiting instructions minimized any prejudicial effect.Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Feinman, JJ.