People v. Thomas
Opinion of the Court
We reject defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of reckless endangerment in the first degree. Defendant’s egregious conduct, viewed as a whole, supported the conclusion that he acted with the culpable mental state of depraved indifference to human life (see People v Feingold, 7 NY3d 288 [2006]; People v Mooney, 62 AD3d 725 [2009]).
The record does not establish that defendant’s sentence was based on any improper criteria, and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.