In People v. Goldstein (196 Misc. 2d 741 [App Term, 2d Dept 2003]), the Appellate Term expressly held that "defendant's contention that the aggravated harassment statute (Penal Law 240.30 [1], [2]) is unconstitutional because defendant was within his First Amendment rights in making various statements is without merit." (196 Misc. 2d at 745.) The Appellate Term in Goldstein referred to the criminalized conduct (as had the Court of Appeals in Shack), as a "form of trespass," due to the manner of communication selected by the defendant (i.e., telephone or mail), and noted the "substantial privacy interests" of the complainant. (196 Misc. 2d at 747.) In Goldstein (supra, 196 Misc. 2d 741 [2003]), the defendant--as part of a sustained campaign of harassment--made a telephoned threat to "take down" the complainant, which threat could be analogized to the instant threat to "bury" the complainant. The statement in Goldstein (at 746) was made in a context in which it was apparent that what was meant was to "take her down" socially, financially, and professionally, although not physically and through violence. The threat was adjudged by the Appellate Term as nevertheless sufficient to sustain a conviction after trial under section 240.30 (1).