Majority
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered August 7, 2000, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree and aggravated harassment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly allowed a pretrial amendment to the indictment to remedy a clerical error. The amendment did not change the theory of the prosecution, and was consistent with the evidence presented to the grand jury (see People v Grega, 72 NY2d 489 , 499 [1988]; People v Teribury, 229 AD2d 829 [1996]; People v DeSanto, 217 AD2d 636 [1995]; People v Sage, 204 AD2d 746 [1994]; People v Johnson, 163 AD2d 613 [1990]; People v Petterson, 103 AD2d 811 [1984]; People v Murray, 92 AD2d 617 [1983]; People v Heaton, 59 AD2d 704 [1977]). In addition, the defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced in any way by the amendment (see People v Sage, supra; People v Hood, 194 AD2d 556 [1993]; People v Johnson, supra).
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction is partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CEL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Cozier and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People of State of New York v. Grega 72 NY2d 489 at 499 p. 408
- People v. Teribury 229 AD2d 829 p. 408
- People v. DeSanto 217 AD2d 636 p. 408
- People v. Sage 204 AD2d 746 p. 408
- People v. Johnson 163 AD2d 613 p. 408
- People v. Murray 92 AD2d 617 p. 408
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 p. 408
- People v. Garafolo 44 AD2d 86 at 88 p. 409
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 409