People v. Shahriar (Mohammed)

People v Shahriar (2021 NY Slip Op 50779(U)) [*1] People v Shahriar (Mohammed) 2021 NY Slip Op 50779(U) [72 Misc 3d 139(A)] Decided on August 5, 2021 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Decided on August 5, 2021 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT: : TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, P.J., JERRY GARGUILO, TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, JJ 2019-1510 N CR The People of the State of New York, Respondent, against Mohammed Shahriar, Appellant. Kristina S. Heuser, for appellant. Nassau County District Attorney (John B. Latella and Andrew Fukuda of counsel), for respondent. Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Glen Cove, Nassau County (Richard J. McCord, J.), rendered July 31, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the second degree, and imposed sentence. ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50 [3]). Defendant was sentenced to a three-year term of probation, and the court issued a five-year stay-away order of protection in favor of the complainant against defendant. On appeal, defendant contends, among other things, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, he was deprived of meaningful representation, and his sentence is excessive. In conducting an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [2]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 409 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). We find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Contrary to defendant's contention, defense counsel provided him with meaningful representation in accordance with the New York State standard (see NY Const, art I, § 6; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 155-156 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1988]). It is well settled that sentencing is a matter committed to the sentencing court's discretion (see People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305 [1981]; see also People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85 [*2][1982]). A review of the record indicates that defendant's sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80), and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant a modification of the sentence (see People v Hodges, 13 AD3d 979 [2004]; People v Singh, 63 Misc 3d 163[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50928[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]). Defendant's remaining contention is without merit. The determination to admit videotape evidence "generally rests . . . within a trial court's founded discretion" (People v Patterson, 93 NY2d 80, 84 [1999]). In our view, the court properly precluded admission of the video evidence (see People v Chess, 66 Misc 3d 142[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50166[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2020]). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. RUDERMAN, P.J., GARGUILO and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur. ENTER: Paul Kenny Chief Clerk Decision Date: August 5, 2021