ORTIZ, YOKOHIRO VIDAL, PEOPLE v

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department [488] KA 10-00830 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER YOKOHIRO VIDAL ORTIZ, ALSO KNOWN AS ORTIZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. JOHN E. TYO, SHORTSVILLE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (HEATHER A. PARKER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), rendered September 8, 2009. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation previously imposed upon his conviction of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [6]) and criminal mischief in the third degree (§ 145.05 [2]) and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment. Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court properly determined that the People met their burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation (see People v Pringle, 72 AD3d 1629, 1629 , lv denied 15 NY3d 855 ; People v Donohue, 64 AD3d 1187, 1188 ; People v Bergman, 56 AD3d 1225 , lv denied 12 NY3d 756 ). The People provided the necessary “residuum of competent legal evidence” (Pringle, 72 AD3d at 1630 [internal quotation marks omitted]), and “the decision to revoke his probation will not be disturbed, [absent a] clear abuse of discretion” (Bergman, 56 AD3d 1225 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court