| People v Taylor |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02512 [126 AD3d 1018] |
| March 25, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Charles Taylor, Appellant. |
Richard M. Langone, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Cristin N. Connell andLaurie K. Gibbons of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County(Ayres, J.), rendered February 7, 2013, convicting him of assault in the first degree,assault in the third degree (two counts), and aggravated harassment in the second degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction ofaggravated harassment in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, anddismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Penal Law former § 240.30 (1) (a), which prohibited a person fromengaging in communication "in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm," has beenstruck down by the Court of Appeals as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad (see People v Golb, 23 NY3d455, 466-467 [2014]; People v Edrees, 123 AD3d 842 [2014]). Accordingly, thedefendant's conviction of aggravated harassment in the second degree under that versionof the statute must be vacated (see People v Edrees, 123 AD3d 842 [2014]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconviction of assault in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People vHawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894,895 [2000]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]). In any event, viewingthe evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant'sguilt of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibilityto conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunityto view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was notagainst the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as the recordreveals that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d [*2]708, 712 [1998]; Peoplev Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, without merit. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.