[*1]
People v Betko (Czeslaw)
2010 NY Slip Op 50132(U) [26 Misc 3d 134(A)]
Decided on January 27, 2010
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 27, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : RIOS, J.P., PESCE and GOLIA, JJ
2007-1227 Q CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Czeslaw Betko, Appellant.


Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William Harrington, J.), rendered June 8, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of menacing in the third degree, attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and harassment in the second degree.


ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged with menacing in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.14 [1]), attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.01 [2]) and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]). The charge of menacing in the second degree was subsequently reduced to menacing in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.15). At trial, the complainant, defendant's wife, testified that, during an argument, while the complainant was standing two feet away, defendant stood up from his seat at the kitchen table and raised a kitchen knife, while saying, "you bitch, I'm going to give you jail."

Upon a review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we conclude that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of all three charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant's intent to place the complainant in fear of imminent physical injury could have been inferred from his actions (see Penal Law § 120.15; Matter of Monay W., 33 AD3d 809, 810 [2006]). This conduct could also have been interpreted as an attempt to subject the complainant to physical contact with the intent to alarm her (see Penal Law § 240.26 [1]). Finally, the circumstances demonstrate that defendant considered the knife he held to be a weapon (see Penal Law § 265.01 [2]; Matter of Sean R., 33 AD3d 925, 926 [2006]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Rios, J.P., Pesce and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 27, 2010