| People v Spinac |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 04002 [185 AD3d 498] |
| July 16, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Leverett Spinac, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Hunter Haney of counsel), forappellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Noreen M. Stackhouse of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered June 27, 2018,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, aggravated harassment inthe second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree andstalking in the third degree (two counts), and sentencing him to an aggregate term of3
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the determinations. The trialevidence established that the defendant engaged in a 10-month campaign of harassment, whereinhe terrorized the attorneys and two female staff at the law firm representing his wife in divorceproceedings. The defendant called the firm more than 1,500 times during that period, andengaged in vile communication which became progressively more sexual, racist and threateningin nature. The evidence likewise supports the conclusion that defendant caused physical injury tohis wife's matrimonial lawyer when defendant hit the victim in the shin with his four-prongedcane during a court proceeding. To establish physical injury, the People were only required toprove that the victim's injury went beyond mere "petty slaps, shoves, kicks and the like"(Matter of Philip A., 49 NY2d 198, 200 [1980]). Relatively minor injuries causingmoderate, but "more than slight or trivial pain" may suffice (see People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007] [fingernailinjury]), as may injuries that did not require any medical treatment (see People v Guidice,83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]). The victim testified that the assault caused a bruise lasting over aweek, that it caused her to favor the injured leg, that she treated it with ice, and that it caused painrating a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10 when she touched it. In addition, the evidence includedphotographs of the victim's bruise, and eyewitness testimony that the victim appeared to be inpain at the time of the attack and that her leg changed colors. Accordingly, the jury could havereasonably drawn an inference of substantial pain (see e.g. People v Ross, 163 AD3d 428,429 [1st Dept 2018]; People vBlack, 156 AD3d 413 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1113 [2018]).
While we otherwise find no basis to disturb defendant's sentence and do not consider himdeserving of this court's leniency, we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction. In so doing, weextend to him the compassion and consideration he neglected to show the four women simplydoing their jobs, and reduce his sentence to time served because of defendant's age and chronichealth conditions (including coronary artery disease, hypertension and diabetes), and the fact thathe has only a few months to serve before his release date. Concur—Manzanet-Daniels,J.P., Mazzarelli, Gesmer, Oing, Singh, JJ.