WEEZORAK, SHAWN D., PEOPLE v ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1420
    KA 11-02608
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    SHAWN D. WEEZORAK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM,
    PLLC (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (GEOFFREY KAEUPER OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County
    (Daniel J. Doyle, J.), rendered October 21, 2011. The judgment
    convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of overdriving, torturing
    and injuring animals in violation of Agriculture and Markets Law §
    353.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
    upon a nonjury verdict of overdriving, torturing and injuring animals
    (Agriculture and Markets Law § 353). The charges arose from an
    incident in which defendant punched his dog and held its head
    underwater in a bathtub, after the dog excreted in defendant’s home.
    Contrary to defendant’s contention, viewing the evidence in light of
    the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial, we conclude that “an
    acquittal would have been unreasonable . . . , and thus the verdict is
    not against the weight of the evidence” (People v Kreutter, 121 AD3d
    1534, 1535-1536, lv denied 25 NY3d 990). We conclude that defendant
    abandoned his further contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing
    to suppress the dog’s exhumed remains because the warrantless search
    was illegal. Although defendant initially moved to suppress the
    evidence on that ground, he expressly limited the scope of the
    suppression hearing in his written closing statement following the
    hearing to the custodial interrogation issue, and he also failed to
    seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion in which he argued
    that the search and seizure was illegal (see People v Britton, 113
    AD3d 1101, 1102, lv denied 22 NY3d 1154; see generally People v Adams,
    90 AD3d 1508, 1509, lv denied 18 NY3d 954).
    Entered:    December 31, 2015                      Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 11-02608

Filed Date: 12/31/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/7/2016