Majority
The court properly declined to charge justification. There was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to defendant, that supported a justification defense (see People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299 , 301-302 [1982]; People v Hubrecht, 2 AD3d 289 , 290 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 741 [2004]). Neither the prosecution nor the defense case provided a factual basis for such a charge. In any event, any error in declining to charge justification was harmless. Defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child, a crime to which the defense of justification generally does not apply (see People v Varela, 164 AD2d 924 [2d Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 1025 [1990]; People v Fields, 134 AD2d 365 [2d Dept 1987], lv denied 72 NY2d 956 [1988]). Even assuming that this defense could apply to an endangering charge, under the present circumstances, there is no reasonable possibility that a justification instruction would have resulted in a more favorable verdict. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Gische, JJ.
Cases cited
- People v. Watts 57 NY2d 299 at 301-302 p. 567
- People v. Hubrecht 2 AD3d 289 at 290 p. 567
- People v. Varela 164 AD2d 924 p. 567
- People v. Fields 134 AD2d 365 p. 567