| People v Ranot |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 03201 [194 AD3d 967] |
| May 19, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Sheetal Ranot, Appellant. |
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, NY (Richard E. Mischel and Gail Jacobs of counsel),for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Nancy FitzpatrickTalcott, and Mariana Zelig of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Richard L.Buchter, J.), rendered September 8, 2016, convicting her of assault in the first degree andendangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing her to a determinate termof imprisonment of 15 years plus 5 years of postrelease supervision on the conviction of assaultin the first degree and a concurrent definite term of imprisonment of 1 year on the conviction ofendangering the welfare of a child.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, byreducing the sentence imposed on the conviction of assault in the first degree from a determinateterm of imprisonment of 15 years plus 5 years of postrelease supervision to a determinate term ofimprisonment of 8 years plus 5 years of postrelease supervision; as so modified, the judgment isaffirmed.
Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree andendangering the welfare of a child in connection with the defendant's conduct toward herstepdaughter (hereinafter the victim), including striking the victim with a "sharp" metal handle ofa broom, which resulted in permanent injury to the victim's wrist.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that sheintended to cause serious physical injury is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Cabrera, 61 AD3d884, 884-885 [2009]; People v Dosunmu, 267 AD2d 320, 320 [1999]; People vCamus, 255 AD2d 392, 392 [1998]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we findthat it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted withintent to cause serious physical injury to the victim (see Penal Law§§ 10.00 [10]; 120.10 [1]), which may be inferred from the defendant'sconduct and the surrounding circumstances (see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 303[1977]). Further, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt thatthe defendant endangered the welfare of a child (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d at 621).Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]). Upon [*2]reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guiltwas not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied her request tosubmit assault in the second degree to the jury as a lesser included offense of assault in the firstdegree. "A party who seeks to have a lesser included crime charged to the jury must satisfy atwo-pronged inquiry" (People vRivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120 [2014]; see People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63[1982]). "First, the crime must be a lesser included offense" (People v Rivera, 23 NY3dat 120), meaning that "it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantlycommitting the lesser offense by the same conduct" (People v Van Norstrand, 85 NY2d131, 135 [1995]). "Second, the party making the request for a charge-down 'must then show thatthere is a reasonable view of the evidence in the particular case that would support a finding that[the defendant] committed the lesser included offense but not the greater' " (People vRivera, 23 NY3d at 120, quoting People v Glover, 57 NY2d at 63; see CPL300.50 [1]). Here, the defendant established the first prong. However, viewing the record in thelight most favorable to the defendant (see People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705 [1983]),there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant committedthe lesser offense but not the greater offense (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d at 124).
The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People vSuitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Chambers, J.P., Austin, LaSalle and Wooten, JJ., concur.