| People v Williams |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 01331 [169 AD3d 567] |
| February 21, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anthony Williams, Appellant. |
Janet E. Sabel, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Steven J. Miraglia of counsel), forappellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Jennifer L. Watson of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John W. Carter, J.), rendered September 17, 2013, asamended December 3, 2018, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal contempt in the firstdegree (three counts), assault in the third degree, falsely reporting an incident in the second degree,burglary in the second degree, forcible touching, and criminal contempt in the second degree, andsentencing him to an aggregate maximum term of 17 years and 2 months, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's arguments concerning the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting theburglary conviction are unavailing (see Peoplev Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury'scredibility determinations. The element of unlawful entry was amply supported by the victim's testimonythat defendant entered her apartment despite her objections, as well as being in violation of an order ofprotection (see People v Cajigas, 19NY3d 697, 701 [2012]; People vLewis, 5 NY3d 546, 552 [2005]). The evidence also supports a reasonable inference thatwhen defendant entered the apartment, he intended, at least, to threaten the victim and subject her toforcible touching.
The court properly denied defendant's request for a missing witness charge with respect to policeofficers who had allegedly examined damage to the victim's window caused by defendant's entry intoher apartment. The officers would not have provided material testimony (see generally People vGonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427 [1986]), because whether defendant caused damage when heopened the window and entered over the victim's objection was not a material issue in the context ofthe case.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick,Gesmer, Kern, JJ.