By Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kahn, Singh, Moulton, JJ.7076. PEOPLE, res, v. Grevelle Bartley, def-ap — Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Allison N. Kahl of counsel), for ap — Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (James J. Wen of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith Lieb, J.), rendered March 9, 2017, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted assault in the third degree, attempted obstruction of breathing or blood circulation and harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 20 days in jail and one year of probation, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).The court’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 348-349 [2007]). Inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, including those related to prior acts of domestic violence, presented the court with issues of credibility that it properly resolved.The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a mistrial, or declining to impose any other sanction, based on the People’s loss of the victim’s handwritten statements in two previous domestic incident reports. Initially, we note that while defense counsel first asked for an adverse inference, she immediately replaced that request with a motion for a mistrial, which was the only request ruled upon by the court, and we conclude that a mistrial would have plainly been a unwarranted remedy. In any event, the reports at issue were transcribed into typewriteen reports, which were provided to defendant. Defendant has failed to show any likelihood of any errors or omissions in the transcription, or any other prejudice (see People v. Martinez, 22 NY3d 551, 557 [2014]). Moreover, even if the court had chosen to draw an adverse inference, there is no reasonable possibility that it would have thus reached a different verdict as trier of fact.Defendant did not preserve his argument that he was constitutionally entitled to a jury trial on class B domestic violence misdemeanors rendering him deportable, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits (see People v. Suazo, 146 AD3d 423, 423-424 [1st Dept 2017] lv granted 29 NY3d 1087 [2017]).We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
By Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kahn, Singh, Moulton, JJ.7077. Iykeland Ricketts Claimants-ap — v. State of New York, def-res — Parker Waichman LLP, Port Washington (Jay L.T. Breakstone of counsel), for ap — Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Seth M. Rokosky of counsel), for res — Order of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered April 13, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.Claimants’ argument that Correction Law §147 imposed upon defendant a statutory duty to accurately record the guilty plea of claimant Iykeland Ricketts is unpreserved insofar as it specifically invokes section 147 as the alleged source of statutory duty. In any event, by its terms, section 147 directs the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Community Services to investigate and forward alien inmates’ records to Federal immigration authorities. The statute imposes no duty on the New York City Criminal Court (or any other branch of the judiciary), the entity which claimants contend erred. Thus, the statute fails as a source of duty for the state actor that claimants allege erred (see McLean v. City of New York, 12 NY3d 194, 199 [2009]; Pelaez v. Seide, 2 NY3d 186, 200 [2004]).Claimants’ contention that the motion court should have denied summary judgment to permit them to conduct discovery is unavailing. Claimants do not state in what way discovery was incomplete, or explain what essential facts further discovery might uncover (see Global Mins. & Metals Corp. v. Holme, 35 AD3d 93, 103 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]).This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
