Skip to content

People v Califano, 2017 NY Slip Op 07613 [155 AD3d 647]

November 1, 2017

Appellate Division, Second Department

[*1]

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Umberto Califano, Appellant.

Matthew Muraskin, Port Jefferson, NY, for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Kevin King and Hilda Mortensen of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (McDonald, J.), rendered March 18, 2016, convicting him of disorderly conduct, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20 [3]), based upon evidence that he engaged in conduct that included repeatedly making loud, obscene, and profanity-laced comments directed at a police officer and other people on a public street in a residential area at approximately 10:00 p.m. on February 15, 2014. Evidence was also adduced that the defendant threatened one of his neighbors with physical harm.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt of disorderly conduct. The defendant’s disruptive behavior recklessly created “ ’a potential or immediate public problem’ ” ( People v Weaver , 16 NY3d 123 , 128 [2011], quoting People v Munafo , 50 NY2d 326, 331 [1980]), and there was adequate proof from which the jury reasonably could conclude that the defendant’s conduct created at least the risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm ( see People v Weaver , 16 NY3d at 128). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Jones , 81 AD2d 22, 29 [1981]) and, in any event, without merit. Balkin, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur..