| People v Adair |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 08292 [177 AD3d 1357] |
| November 15, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Luther Adair, Appellant. |
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse, Davison Law Office PLLC,Canandaigua (Mary P. Davison of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Darienn P. Balin of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Stephen J. Dougherty, J.),rendered February 24, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, ofcriminal contempt in the first degree, obstructing governmental administration in thesecond degree and resisting arrest.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a juryverdict, of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [b][v]), obstructing governmental administration in the second degree(§ 195.05), and resisting arrest (§ 205.30). We affirm.
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of criminal contempt in the first degreeas charged to the jury, we reject defendant's contention that the verdict convicting him ofthat crime is against the weight of the evidence with respect to the element of intent (see generally People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Defendant's own trial testimonyconcerning the incident was largely consistent with the victim's account, and the jury wasentitled to infer the requisite intent from that testimony.
We reject defendant's further contention that his conviction of obstructinggovernmental administration in the second degree is unsupported by legally sufficientevidence, and we are not bound by the People's incorrect concession to the contrary(see People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361, 366-367 [1971]; People v Colsrud, 144 AD3d1639, 1640 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 1030 [2017]). At trial, twopolice officers testified that defendant "pull[ed] away" from them after they firstapprehended him during a domestic disturbance, and defendant himself testified that he"struggle[d]" with the officers because he was "trying to get away." Inasmuch as theofficers were justified in forcibly detaining defendant in order to quickly confirm ordispel their reasonable suspicion of his alleged involvement in the domestic disturbance(see People v McKee, 174AD3d 1444, 1445 [4th Dept 2019]), the testimony of the officers and defendanthimself is legally sufficient to support the jury's finding that defendant "attempt[ed] toprevent a public servant from performing an official function [(i.e., investigating thedomestic incident)] by means of . . . physical . . .interference" (Penal Law § 195.05 [emphasis added]; see Matter of Thomas L., 4AD3d 295, 295 [1st Dept 2004]; People v Tarver, 188 AD2d 938, 938 [3dDept 1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 893 [1993]). Moreover, viewing the evidence inlight of the elements of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree ascharged to the jury, we conclude that the verdict with respect to that crime is not againstthe weight of the evidence (see Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348-349). Given ourdetermination, we necessarily reject defendant's challenges to the legal sufficiency andweight of the evidence underlying his conviction of resisting arrest inasmuch as thosecontentions " 'depend[ ] on the success of' " his challenges to hisconviction of obstructing governmental administration (People v Simpson, 173 AD3d1617, 1618 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 954 [2019]; seegenerally People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133, 135 [1987]; People v Graves, 163 AD3d16, 23 [4th Dept 2018]).
Finally, to the extent that defendant remains subject to the sentence imposed in thiscase, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.Present—Whalen, P.J., Peradotto, Lindley, DeJoseph and NeMoyer, JJ.