- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
People v. Brown
People v Brown
2026 NY Slip Op 06170 October 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Richard Brown, Appellant.
Decided and Entered:October 22, 2026
113408
Calendar Date: September 10, 2026 Before: Aarons, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, Powers And Mackey, JJ. Angela Kelley, East Greenbush, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent. [*1]
Powers, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Matthew Sypniewski, J.), rendered November 9, 2021, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary in the first degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree.
On the evening of July 7, 2020, a resident of an apartment building in the City of Schenectady (hereinafter the victim) placed a 911 call to report that an individual had entered his apartment unit, attacked him and he was bleeding profusely. Following an investigation by the Schenectady Police Department, defendant was identified as matching the description of one of the individuals captured in surveillance footage outside the apartment building and, therefore, interviewed in connection with the crime. Defendant made certain incriminating statements during this interview and, considering other evidence collected, he was charged with numerous criminal offenses. After certain hearings, the matter proceeded to trial. Markedly, prospective jurors were identified only by their assigned juror number and initials during jury selection. Defendant was ultimately convicted of two counts of burglary in the first degree (see Penal Law §
140.30 [2], [3]) and one count of assault in the second degree (see Penal Law § 120.05 [2]). He was sentenced, as a second violent felony offender, to two concurrent 12-year prison terms, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision, on the burglary convictions and a lesser concurrent term of incarceration on the assault conviction. Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that his convictions are unsupported by legally sufficient evidence and against the weight of the evidence because, in his view, the People failed to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes. "When assessing the legal sufficiency of a jury verdict, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the People and examine whether 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 Dillon, 231 AD3d 1352, 1353 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord People v White, 231 AD3d 1429, 1429 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1082 [2025]). In contrast, "when conducting a weight of the evidence review, we must view the evidence in a neutral light and determine first whether a different verdict would have been unreasonable and, if not, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" (People v Dillon,
231 AD3d at 1353 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Baez, 232 AD3d 1044, 1045 [3d Dept
2024]).
Relevant here, "[a] person is guilty of burglary in the first degree when he [or she] knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit a [*2]crime therein, and when, in effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in immediate flight therefrom, he [or she] . . . [c]auses physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime" (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]) or "[u]ses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument" (Penal Law §
140.30 [3]). "A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when . . . [w]ith intent to cause physical injury to another person, he [or she] causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument" (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]).
Initially, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, there is legally sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could conclude that defendant committed the crimes for which he was convicted (see People v Ketter, 250 AD3d 1373, 1375 [3d Dept 2026]; People v Rivera, 239 AD3d 1045, 1047-1048 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 1058
1
[2025]; People v Terry, 196 AD3d 840, 845 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1030 [2021]). Based upon the video footage from the area and his own admissions, defendant was undisputedly at the apartment building at the time of the attack. More to the point, after initial denials, defendant acknowledged in his interview with law enforcement that he was inside the residential area of the building and, though claiming that the victim was the aggressor, defendant admitted he and the victim fought. Further, a witness testified that an individual loosely matching defendant's description entered the residential area and then made a quick exit by jumping off the roof, rather than going down the stairs.
A different verdict would not have been unreasonable had the jury credited the version of events defendant advanced during his interview â principally, that the victim was the aggressor and that, during their altercation, he did not stab or slash the victim. Or, alternatively, had the jury believed that another individual with the apparent motive to harm the victim had perpetrated the attack. Nevertheless, there is ample circumstantial evidence to support defendant's identity as the perpetrator (see People v Scott, 198 AD3d 1325, 1326 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1164 [2022]; see generally People v Baque, 43 NY3d 26, 30 [2024]). Although no witness observed defendant commit the burglary or attendant assault upon the victim, video footage and defendant's admissions place him at the location at the time of the attack. While defendant stated he was there for the purpose of purchasing illicit drugs, a seasoned narcotics detective testified that the interaction captured between defendant and his purported drug dealer was far longer than the average drug deal. Additionally, shortly after the alleged drug deal, a witness saw a man generally matching defendant's description enter the residential area of the building and then, rather than exit by utilizing the stairs, that individual jumped off the roof and fell in the same location where [*3]defendant's blood was found. To the extent witnesses provided varying descriptions of the attacker and there were certain discrepancies as to whether defendant's blood was located on the wall or on the ground, these questions presented credibility issues for the jury to resolve and we defer to those resolutions (see People v Wilson, 251 AD3d 1282, 1286 [3d Dept 2026]; People v Presley, 250 AD3d 1482, 1484 [3d Dept 2026]). We are satisfied that defendant's identity as the perpetrator is supported by the weight of the evidence and "the inference of guilt is the only one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts" (People v Baque, 43 NY3d at 30 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Everett, 250 AD3d 1246, 1248 [3d Dept 2026], lv denied 45 NY3d 1037 [2026]). All told, the weight of the evidence supports the verdicts as to both counts of burglary in the first degree, as well as the count of assault in the second degree. Next, due to trial counsel's failure to object at a time when County Court could have remedied the issue (see CPL
470.05 [2]), defendant's challenge to the empanelment of an anonymous jury in violation of CPL 270.15 (former [1-a]) is unpreserved for our review (see People v Zakrzewski, 249 AD3d 1314, 1326 [3d Dept 2026], lv dismissed 45 NY3d 1042 [2026], lv denied 45 NY3d 1042 [2026]; People v Goberdhan, 241 AD3d 992, 997-998 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1011 [2025]). We acknowledge that the record does not definitively demonstrate that the list of prospective jurors' names was provided to defendant. Nevertheless, the People have affirmed that, consistent with County Court's practice at the time, such a list was provided to both parties and defendant does not directly contest that assertion. Additionally, review of the trial transcript reveals that the jury did not act as though their identities were being shielded from defendant. Considering these facts, we decline to take corrective action in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15
[3] [c]; People v Reinfurt, 241 AD3d 1015, 1021 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1067 [2026]; People v Goberdhan,
241 AD3d at 1000; cf. People v Rahaman, 248 AD3d 1607, 1609 [3d Dept 2026], lv denied 46 NY3d 929 [2026]; compare People v Zakrzewski, 249 AD3d at 1327; see generally People v Flores, 153 AD3d 182, 191-192 [2d Dept 2017], affd 32 NY3d 1087 [2018]).
Aarons, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher and Mackey, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
2
Alert