PEOPLE v. THOMAS

With respect to the conviction of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree under Penal Law § 240.30 (1), the accusatory instrument was facially sufficient, and the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349). Defendant's telephone call to the victim contained a death threat that placed the victim in reasonable fear for her safety ( see People v Limage, 19 Misc 3d 395, 400 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2008]; People v Tiffany, 186 Misc 2d 917, 920-921 [Crim Ct, NY County 2001]).

With respect to the conviction relating to Penal Law § 240.30 (2), defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument is without merit.