| People v Defilippo |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 05630 [152 AD3d 860] |
| July 13, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1](July 13, 2017)
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael J. Defilippo, Appellant. |
Paul R. Corradini, Elmira, for appellant.
Stephen K. Cornwell Jr., District Attorney, Binghamton (Stephen Ferri of counsel), forrespondent.
Clark, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Cawley, J.),rendered November 8, 2013, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminalcontempt in the second degree (three counts).
In March 2012, after leaving several voice mail messages on the victim's cell phone inDecember 2011, January 2012 and February 2012 in violation of an order of protection directingdefendant to refrain from any contact with the victim, defendant was charged by indictment withthree counts each of criminal contempt in the first degree and aggravated harassment in thesecond degree. The matter proceeded to a trial and, at the close of evidence, the People requestedthat the jury be instructed to consider criminal contempt in the second degree as a lesser includedoffense of criminal contempt in the first degree. Over defendant's objection, County Courtgranted the request and so charged the jury. The jury ultimately returned a verdict convictingdefendant of three counts of criminal contempt in the second degree, as lesser included offensesof the charges of criminal contempt in the first degree, and acquitted defendant of the aggravatedharassment charges. County Court denied defendant's subsequent motion to vacate theconvictions and sentenced defendant to concurrent one-year conditional discharges on eachcount. Defendant now appeals, solely challenging County Court's lesser included offenseruling.
To establish entitlement to a lesser included offense charge, the party seeking the chargemust demonstrate, first, "that it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantly[*2]committing the lesser offense by the same conduct" and,second, that there is "a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendantcommitted the lesser offense but not the greater" (People v Van Norstrand, 85 NY2d 131,135 [1995]; see CPL 1.20 [37]; 300.50 [1], [2]; People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61,63-64 [1982]). The first prong of this analysis "requires the court to compare the statutes in theabstract, without reference to any factual particularities of the underlying prosecution" (People v Repanti, 24 NY3d 706,710 [2015]; see People v Davis, 14NY3d 20, 23 [2009]; People v Glover, 57 NY2d at 64). In contrast, the second prong"calls for an assessment of the evidence of the particular criminal transaction in the individualcase" (People v Glover, 57 NY2d at 64) and requires that there be " 'someidentifiable, rational basis on which the jury could reject a portion of the prosecution's casewhich is indispensable to establishment of the higher crime and yet accept so much of the proofas would establish the lesser crime' " (People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 121 [2014], quoting People vScarborough, 49 NY2d 364, 369-370 [1980]; accord People v Acevedo, 141 AD3d 843, 845 [2016]).
Turning to the applicable statutory provisions, a defendant is guilty of criminal contempt inthe first degree when, in violation of an order of protection "of which the defendant has actualknowledge because he or she was present in court when such order was issued," and "with intentto harass, annoy, threaten or alarm a person for whose protection such order was issued," he orshe "repeatedly makes telephone calls to such person . . . with no purpose oflegitimate communication" (Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [iv]). A conviction for criminalcontempt in the second degree requires, as relevant here, that the defendant engage in"[i]ntentional disobedience or resistance to the lawful process or other mandate of a court" (PenalLaw § 215.50 [3]). Here, an abstract comparison of the relevant statutes plainlyreveals that it would be theoretically impossible to engage in conduct sufficient to constitutecriminal contempt in the first degree, as defined in Penal Law § 215.51 (b) (iv),without, at the same time, engaging in conduct sufficient to constitute criminal contempt in thesecond degree, as defined in Penal Law § 215.50 (3) (see People v VanDeWalle, 46 AD3d1351, 1353 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]; cf. People v Mingo, 66 AD3d1043, 1044-1045 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 843 [2010]; People v Brown, 61 AD3d 1007,1010 [2009]).
As for the second prong of the inquiry, the trial evidence, including the recorded voice mailmessages left by defendant on the victim's cell phone, demonstrated that defendant made a seriesof telephone calls to the victim in December 2011, January 2012 and February 2012 in violationof a valid order of protection that was issued in favor of the victim by the Deposit Village Courtin a proceeding at which defendant was present. Although the victim characterized defendant'stelephone calls and messages as "irrational," there was a reasonable basis in the record for thejury to find that defendant did not make the telephone calls with the "intent to harass, annoy,threaten or alarm" the victim, as the calls often referenced the victim's daughter's well-being(Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [iv]). Accordingly, there was a reasonable view of theevidence to support the finding that defendant committed criminal contempt in the second degreeby intentionally disobeying the order of protection (see Penal Law § 215.50[3]), but that he did not do so with the intent required for criminal contempt in the first degreeunder Penal Law § 215.51 (b) (iv). As such, County Court's lesser included offensecharge was proper.
McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.