Case Title: The People v. Brown

Citation: 2011 NY Slip Op 07146

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2011-10-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 158  
The People &c.,
            Respondent,
        v.
Nadirah Brown, 
            Appellant.
Susan C. Ministero, for appellant.
Matthew B. Powers, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified
by reducing defendant's conviction for reckless assault in the
second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [4]) to criminally negligent
assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [3]), and by
remitting to the Appellate Division for further proceedings in
- 1 -
- 2 -
No. 158
accordance with this memorandum, and as so modified, affirmed.
On August 12, 2007, defendant's then 15-year-old
nephew, Antoine S., and his younger sister were at defendant's
home, where they often spent the night.  On that particular
evening, the three of them were inside defendant's kitchen
heating water on the stove top in order to prepare a hot bath for
defendant's husband.  At some point, Antoine began to engage in
horseplay, splashing defendant and his sister with water from the
sink.  Defendant, in turn, spattered her nephew with water and,
according to Antoine and his sister, noted that she was the
"queen of pranks."  Antoine then left the kitchen to watch
television in a different room.  Shortly thereafter, defendant
retrieved a pot of water that had been placed on the stove and
poured the water onto Antoine.  When the water made contact with
Antoine, his skin started to bubble.  Defendant applied a topical
cream onto Antoine's skin in an effort to alleviate his pain. 
Defendant contacted Antoine's mother and accompanied him and his
mother to the hospital.  Antoine sustained first- and second-
degree burns as a result of this incident.  
Following a nonjury trial, County Court acquitted
defendant of intentional assault in the first degree (Penal Law §
120.10 [1]), but convicted her of second-degree reckless assault
and endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]). 
On appeal, defendant argues that the evidence was legally
insufficient to support her conviction for reckless assault. 
- 2 -
- 3 -
No. 158
Defendant also maintains that the Appellate Division failed to
conduct a weight of the evidence review pursuant to CPL 470.15
(5).*  Finally, defendant contends that she was denied effective
assistance of counsel.
"A verdict is legally sufficient when, viewing the
facts in a light most favorable to the People, there is a valid
line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a
rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved
beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349
[2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]).  Applying this
standard, we conclude that the People failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that defendant acted recklessly.  Penal Law §
15.05 (3) provides that
"[a] person acts recklessly with respect to a 
result . . . when [s]he is aware of and 
consciously disregards a substantial and 
unjustifiable risk that such result will occur[.]  
The risk must be of such nature and degree that 
disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation 
from the standard of conduct that a 
reasonable person would observe in the situation."
While there is record support for a finding that defendant here
acted with criminal negligence when she lifted the pot of water
from the stove and poured it over Antoine, the evidence does not
support County Court’s conclusion that defendant was "aware of"
* CPL 470.15 (5) provides that "[t]he kinds of determinations
of reversal or modification deemed to be on the facts include,
but are not limited to, a determination that a verdict of
conviction resulting in a judgment was, in whole or in part,
against the weight of the evidence."
- 3 -
- 4 -
No. 158
and "consciously disregard[ed]" a known risk that her behavior
would cause Antoine's skin to burn.
Although we have reduced defendant's conviction to
third-degree assault on legal sufficiency grounds, defendant is
entitled to a weight of the evidence review by the Appellate
Division (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 496 [1987]). 
Indeed, the People concede that, in this case, since defendant
argued weight of the evidence at the Appellate Division and the
order of that court "'manifest[s] a lack of application of that
review power' . . . we must reverse and remit for a proper
assessment of the weight of the evidence" (People v Romero, 7
NY3d 633, 646 [2006], quoting Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 496).
We have considered defendant's ineffective assistance
of counsel claim and conclude, so far as the record before us
permits review, that "viewed in totality and as of the time of
the representation, [counsel] provided meaningful representation"
(People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]).  To the extent
that defendant raises arguments concerning counsel's
representation that are outside the record, the proper vehicle
for such arguments is a CPL 440.10 motion.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Order modified by reducing defendant's conviction of assault in
the second degree to assault in the third degree and remitting to
the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, for further
proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so
modified, affirmed.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick,
Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided October 13, 2011
- 4 -