In People v. Atkinson, 21 AD3d 145 (2005), the Court of Appeals distinguished intentional criminal acts from reckless criminal acts by focusing upon "the perpetrator's objective in committing the act and the result the act produces." The Court of Appeals explained as follows: For an intentional crime, the perpetrator must engage in conduct with the conscious objective and purpose of causing a particular unlawful act. For a reckless crime, the perpetrator does not act with the conscious objective of causing the unlawful result, but must engage in conduct that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk, that the unlawful result will occur. The reckless perpetrator is aware of the risk that but consciously disregards it and engages in the conduct anyhow, thereby deviating grossly from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. Id.