Court Opinion

ID: 4442893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-09-30 19:07:47.579576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:59.820071
License: Public Domain

<partyblock> 

<br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, -  

<br><br>against<br><br>Abigail Monroe, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br> 

 

 

 

 

<p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Laurence E. Busching, J.), rendered September 9, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting her of attempted assault in the third degree, attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, harassment in the second degree and menacing in the third degree, and imposing sentence.</p> 

 

 

 

 

<p>Per Curiam.</p> 

<p>Judgment of conviction (Laurence E. Busching, J.), rendered September 9, 2016, affirmed. </p> 

<p>The verdict rejecting defendant's justification defense was not against the weight of the evidence (<i>see</i> People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis upon which to disturb the trial court's determinations concerning credibility. The credited testimony established that defendant's attack, in which she stabbed complainant in the chest with a kitchen knife during a domestic argument, was not preceded by any conduct by the complainant 
 that would support a reasonable belief that the use of physical force against defendant was imminent (<i>see People v Goetz</i>, 68 NY2d 96, 114-115 [1986]). The victim's credited account of the incident was neither unreliable nor implausible and there was no reasonable view of the evidence upon which the factfinder could properly conclude that defendant's conduct was justified (<i>see People v Petty</i>, 7 NY3d 277, 284 [2006]). The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's CPL 170.40 motion to dismiss the charges in furtherance of justice. After considering the statutory factors in totality, we find no "compelling factor" (CPL 170.40[1]) that would warrant that "extraordinary remedy" (<i>People v Moye</i>, 302 AD2d 610, 611, [2003]; <a href="../2016/2016_07102.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Williams</i>, 145 AD3d 100</a>, 107-108 [2016]), which should be exercised "sparingly" (<a href="../2012/2012_02277.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Keith R.</i>, 95 AD3d 65</a>, 67 [2012], <i>lv denied </i>19 NY3d 963 [2012]). </p> 

<p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p> 

<br>I concur I concur I concur 

<br>Decision Date: September 27, 2019 

 

 

<br><br><div align="center"> 

<form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"> 

<input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"> 

</form> 

</div> 

 

 

</partyblock>